James K. Bishop v. Ohio Department of Corrections, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES K. BISHOP, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 2:26-cv-37 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, James K. Bishop, an Ohio inmate who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, sues the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“ODRC”) and several of its employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. After screening Plaintiff’s original Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), the undersigned issued an Order and Report and Recommendation on February 4, 2026, that granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 3.) This matter is before the Court on several motions by Plaintiff.

First, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) and a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6). As Plaintiff is permitted to amend his Complaint once as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint became operative upon filing and supersedes his original Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED and the portion of the undersigned’s February 4, 2026 Order and Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) that recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s original Complaint is VACATED. For clarity, the portion of that Order and Report and Recommendation that granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis remains in effect.

As a result of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and the vacating of the February 4, 2026 Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s subsequent motion for an extension of time to file objections to the February 4, 2026 Report and Recommendation (or, in the alternative, for leave to file an Amended Complaint) (ECF No. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Finally, Plaintiff also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 5).

Although Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, appointment of counsel is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.

See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605–06 (6th Cir. 1993). Rather, “[i]t is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 606. The Court has evaluated whether such exceptional circumstances exist and determines that the appointment of counsel is unwarranted at this juncture. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.

The undersigned will screen Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A in due course by separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE