Elijah Clary v. Sergeant Harper, 694 F. App'x 913

Elijah Shane Clary, a pro se prisoner, sued prison officials under Eighth Amendment/deliberate indifference theories after being sexually assaulted by other inmates; he alleged Defendants failed to protect him and that Harper assigned him to a dangerous unit on October 7, 2009.
The district court granted summary judgment to most defendants and, after a bench trial, entered verdict for Harper; Clary appealed pro se.
Clary claimed trial and discovery errors: late/intended documents (case-factor score and "comments"), denied video footage, exclusion of certain grievance and intake-risk evidence, and inability to have counsel appointed.
The district court found Harper credible and concluded he did not act with deliberate indifference on the day in question; Clary had also made statements at trial undermining his deliberate-indifference claim.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed discovery/ evidentiary rulings, denial of appointed counsel, and whether any errors were harmless; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of case-factor document	Document was not designated pretrial and deprived Clary of ability to refute it	Document was produced pretrial or not objected to; classification irrelevant to the claims	Admission, if erroneous, was harmless; no reversible error
Production of "comments" section and video footage	Comments would show prior harassment; video would show interaction with Harper	No proof comments exist or were requested properly; video request untimely and likely irrelevant	No error shown: no evidence comments existed or were requested; video untimely and speculative
Exclusion/prevention of certain documents at trial	Documents would impeach witness and show high risk and timely reports	Harper objected; Clary did not offer or properly identify documents at trial	No record that court barred them; Clary failed to preserve or clarify claim
Denial of appointed counsel	Lack of counsel and mental/emotional disability prevented adequate litigation and discovery	No exceptional circumstances shown; record lacks corroborating evidence; pro se competent	No abuse of discretion; appointment not required and would not have changed outcome
Evidence of continuing wrong/statistics	Wanted to show pattern of ignored rape risk factors across facilities	Only Harper’s conduct on Oct 7 was at issue; discovery disputes not presented	Properly denied as irrelevant to Harper’s knowledge/actions that day; any error harmless

United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56 (4th Cir. 1989) (appellate review gives deference to trial-court credibility findings)
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984) (standard for appointing counsel in civil cases; exceptional circumstances required)
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (statutory framework limits courts' authority to appoint counsel in civil cases)