Opinion
C/A No. 0:18-2257-TLW-PJG
02-28-2019
Shawn Anthony Clark, Plaintiff, v. Bryan Stirling; Warden Joyner; Warden Tisdale; Warden Sharpe; Major Ray; Officer Beck; Officer Jane Joe; Jane Doe; Night Shift Captains; Captain Rogers; Joseph Stines; Mike McCall; S. Patterson, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Shawn Anthony Clark, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 39.)
There is no right to appointed counsel in § 1983 cases. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1975). The court may use its discretion to request counsel to represent an indigent in a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). However, such discretion "should be allowed only in exceptional cases." Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Whether exceptional circumstances are present depends on the type and complexity of the case, and the pro se litigant's ability to prosecute it. Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard, 490 U.S. 296.
Upon review of the file, the court has determined that there are no exceptional or unusual circumstances presented at this time, nor would the plaintiff be denied due process if the court denied plaintiff's request for counsel. Id.; see also Lindsay v. Glick, 2016 WL 1650771, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2016) ("[T]he absence of a law library does not yield exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel." (internal quotation marks omitted)(collecting cases)). Based on the pleadings before the court, the plaintiff writes well and appears capable of addressing the legal issues. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion requesting counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE February 28, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina