# Brown v. Tutt

> District Court, D. South Carolina · October 1, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10422691

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** October 1, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10422691

## Opinion text

IN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Isaiah Brown, ) C/A No.: 1:19-2481-DCN-SVH
)
Plaintiff, )
)

)
vs. ORDER
)
)
Cpt. Joey Tutt, )
)
Defendant. )
)

Isaiah Brown (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, brought this civil rights action alleging a violation of his
constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for
appointment of counsel. [ECF No. 11].
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in civil cases.
While the court is granted the power to exercise its discretion to appoint
counsel for an indigent party 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 requests appointed counsel because he claims he has
limited access to legal and other research materials. [ECF No. 11 at 1].
After a 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 case.
The undersigned acknowledges nonbinding precedent from United
States Courts of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits requiring courts
considering motions pursuant to § 1915(e)(1) to evaluate a pro se plaintiff's
competence to litigate the case. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th
Cir. 2007); Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.8d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002).
Although the Fourth Circuit has articulated no similar requirement, the
undersigned finds Plaintiff's pleadings demonstrate he sufficiently
competent to pursue his own claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a
discretionary appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(Ye. V. adper
October 1, 2019 Shiva V. Hodges
Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10422691. Public record. Not legal advice.