United States District Court, D. South Carolina
V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge.
Murray (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred
to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
This matter comes before the court on the following motions
filed by Plaintiff:
(1) Motions to Stop Retaliation [ECF Nos. 19, 21];
(2) Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 29];
(3) Motions to Produce/Compel [ECF Nos. 30, 31]; and
(4) Motion to Amend the Complaint [ECF No. 32].
reasons that follow, the court denies all of Plaintiff's
to Stop Retaliation
complaint [ECF No. 1], Plaintiff complains of matters that
allegedly occurred while he was housed at McCormick
Correctional Institution (“MCI”) and the
defendants in this action are MCI officers. Plaintiff noted
in his motions to stop retaliation [ECF Nos. 19, 21] that he
was being housed at Lieber Correctional Institution. On March
10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address
reflecting that he has since been moved to Lee Correctional
Institution. [ECF No. 26]. Plaintiff does not allege that the
named defendants have taken any action to retaliate against
him. Further, because the court does not have jurisdiction
over individuals who are not defendants in this action,
Plaintiff's motions are denied.
to Appoint Counsel
has filed a motion for the court to appoint him counsel. [ECF
No. 29]. There is no right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights cases. Cf. Hardwick v.
Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). While the court
is granted the power to exercise its 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). Plaintiff in his motion has not
shown that any exceptional circumstances exist in this case.
review of the file, this court has determined that there are
no exceptional or unusual circumstances presented that would
justify the appointment of counsel, nor would Plaintiff be
denied due process if an attorney were not appointed.
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984). In
most civil rights cases, the issues are not complex, and
whenever such a case brought by an uncounseled litigant goes
to trial, the court outlines proper procedure so the
uncounseled litigant will not be deprived of a fair
opportunity to present his or her case. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's request for a discretionary appointment of
counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(1) is denied.
has again submitted a motion to produce [ECF No. 30] instead
of serving Defendants with discovery requests as provided by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion appears to
request information and documents from defendants. Pursuant
to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
interrogatories and requests for ...