United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Bobby C. Jenkins, Plaintiff,
Brian Stirling, Wayne McCain, Charles West, A Jolley, and Willie Eagleton, Defendants.
Kaymani D. West Florence United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Produce, ECF No. 62; Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers
to Interrogatories, ECF No. 63; Plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 65; and Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend/Correct the Scheduling Order, ECF No. 66. Defendants
have responded to Plaintiff's Motions. ECF Nos. 72, 73,
76, 77. Plaintiff filed a Reply concerning his Motion to
Appoint Counsel and his Motion to Amend/Correct the
Scheduling Order. See ECF Nos. 79, 80. The court
will rule on each motion in turn.
Motion to Compel Production, ECF No. 62
February 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel
Production of “the complete property sheet with the
seal 079762 with the signature on it because this Inmate
Property Inventory sheet has unit manager Ford as the STAFF
person who complete (sic) it and correctional counslor (sic)
Hudson.” ECF No. 62 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants copied the property sheet so that it would not
show the names of certain officers. Id.
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges an inventory sheet from March
10, 2016 was not included in the documents Defendants
provided in discovery. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants have produced “falsified”
documents to him, and he alleges there is no SCDC use of
force form. Id. Further, Plaintiff represents that
the amount of chemical munitions used is not in the Incident
Report. Id. at 3. Finally, Plaintiff seeks
production of the following four documents: (1) complete
property control record; (2) the March 2, 2016 property sheet
“done by unit manager Ford” with signatures of
the inventory officer and witnessing officer; (3) the March
2, 2016 special management unit authorized property sheet
from Evans Correctional Institution; (4) any reports
concerning the March 1, 2016 incident “made by SCDC
employees and/or witness[es].” Id.
February 21, 2017, Defendants filed a Response to
Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 72. There, Defendants
represent they provided Plaintiff with a copy of the March 2,
2016 property sheet which was attached as an Exhibit to their
Response. See ECF No. 72-1. Additionally, Defendants
represent that they have provided Plaintiff with a copy of
all property sheets in their possession, and no sheet exists
for March 10, 2016. ECF No. 72 ¶ 2. Defendants further
indicate that they have produced all requested documents to
Plaintiff and have “fully complied with Plaintiff's
discovery requests.” Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
undersigned has reviewed the RFPs and responses to it.
See ECF No. 72-2. It appears that Defendant has
obtained responses to Plaintiff's requests to the extent
the RFPs are related to the incident and to the extent the
documentation is in Defendants' possession. Therefore,
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 62, is
Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, ECF No. 63
February 6, 2017, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel
Interrogatories, asserting that Defendant Stirling did not
fully answer interrogatories served on him. ECF No. 63.
Plaintiff wrote out four interrogatories that he claims
Defendant Stirling did not answer. See Id. at 1-2.
On February 21, 2017, Defendants filed a Response to
Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 73. There, Defendants assert
that Defendant Stirling has answered Plaintiff's
interrogatories, and Defendants served Plaintiff with a copy
of the answers on January 30, 2017. See Id. The
court has reviewed Plaintiff's interrogatories and
Defendant's answers and finds that Defendants have
provided Plaintiff with answers to the four interrogatories
at issue in Plaintiff's Motion. See ECF No.
73-1. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel,
ECF No. 63, is denied.
Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 65
requests that the court appoint him counsel. ECF No. 65. On
March 2, 2017, Defendants responded to Plaintiff request for
counsel, opposing it. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff's Motion is
denied. There is no right to appointed counsel in a §
1983 case. Cf. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th
Cir. 1975). Although the court has discretion to appoint
counsel for an indigent in a civil action, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1); Smith v. Blackledge, 451 F.2d 1201 (4th
Cir. 1971), such appointment “should be allowed only in
exceptional cases.” Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d
779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). The existence of exceptional
circumstances “will turn on the quality of two basic
factors - the type and complexity of the case, and the
abilities of the individuals bringing it.” Brock v.
City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir. 1993)
(unpublished table decision) (quoting Whisenant v.
Yaum, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984)). Having
reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, the court has determined
that there are no exceptional or unusual circumstances
presented which would justify the appointment of counsel.
Whisenant, 739 F.2d at 160. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No.
65, is denied.
Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, ECF No. 66
February 16, 2017, Plaintiff asked the court to modify the
scheduling order to extend the discovery deadline because the
Defendants "failed to answer interrogatories or produce
documents which w[ere] requested by Plaintiff." ECF No.
March 2, 2017, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs Motion and
indicated that they "have responded fully to the
Plaintiffs discovery requests as addressed in Plaintiffs
Motions to Compel. . . ." ECF No. 76. Therefore,
Defendants "oppose Plaintiffs motion on that basis and
ask that the court deny the motion." Id. In
Reply, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have not fully
responded to his discovery requests. ECF No. 80. Further,
Plaintiff alleges that there is a key piece of evidence
missing from Defendants' responses to his Second set of
Requests for Production. Id. at 1-2. As indicated
above, the undersigned finds that Defendants have produced
responses to Plaintiffs ...