Wolfe v. Rynolds ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION MICHAEL E. WOLFE, ) C/A No. 4:18-1350-TMC-TER ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER NFN. RYNOLDS, ) NFN. SHARP, ) NFN ROGERS, ) NFN McCULLOUGH, ) NFN. RICHARDSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________________) Within Plaintiff’s numerous motions, he has requested the court to appoint certain attorneys to represent him. There is no right to appointed counsel in Section 1983 cases. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1975). 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(d) and Smith v. Blackledge, 451 F.2d 1201 (4th Cir. 1971). However, the appointment "should be allowed only in exceptional cases." Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). At this time, the undersigned finds exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant the appointment of counsel. Therefore, the court appoints Henry P. Wall, Esquire, to represent Plaintiff in this action. The outstanding motions filed in this case are deemed moot. The court will enter a new scheduling order. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas E. Rogers, III November 20, 2019 Thomas E. Rogers, III Florence, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge 2