District Court, D. South Carolina, 2021

Earl v. Hansen

Earl v. Hansen
District Court, D. South Carolina · Decided February 25, 2021
Earl v. Hansen

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Le’Andre Earl, ) C/A No.: 1:20-3907-BHH-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ORDER ) ) Stephen Hoey, Doctor, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Le’Andre Earl (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil rights action alleging a violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. [ECF No. 27].

There is no right to appointed counsel in § 1983 cases. , 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); , 451 F.2d 1201 (4th Cir. 1971), such appointment “should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” , 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff in his motion has not shown any exceptional circumstances exist in this case. Rather, he simply states he suffered from medical problems in February 2021.

After a review of the file, this court has determined 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 case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a discretionary appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) is denied.

However, after a review of Plaintiffs motion, the undersigned extends Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant’s summary judgment motion until April 21, 2021. Additionally, the Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with another copy of the Roseboro order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PP U feeder” February 25, 2021 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.