James v. Lassiter
5:19-ct-03074
E.D.N.C.Nov 12, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Harry Sharod James, a North Carolina state inmate proceeding pro se, sued Kenneth E. Lassiter, Tom Brickhouse, Ina M. Hinton, and Chaplain Hardison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of RLUIPA and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- James filed motions to appoint counsel and for summary judgment while proceeding in forma pauperis.
- Defendants had not answered or otherwise responded and the parties had not completed discovery when the motions were considered.
- The court conducted frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
- The court denied appointment of counsel, finding no exceptional circumstances, but directed appointment of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services (NCPLS) to assist with discovery under standing order 17-SO-03.
- The court denied the summary judgment motion as premature under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), found the complaint not frivolous, allowed the action to proceed, and directed the clerk and U.S. Marshals to effect service under the applicable standing orders if necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of counsel | James cannot afford counsel and lacks legal training | No response from defendants; no asserted opposition | Denied; no exceptional circumstances to appoint counsel; NCPLS appointed to assist with discovery under standing order 17-SO-03 |
| Summary judgment | James moved for summary judgment on his claims | Defendants had not answered or completed discovery | Denied as premature under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); may renew after discovery |
| Frivolity review under §1915 | James alleges RLUIPA and constitutional claims | N/A (no basis shown to dismiss as frivolous) | Complaint not frivolous and states sufficient facts; action allowed to proceed |
| Service and case management | Implicit request for assistance progressing the case | N/A | Clerk directed to follow standing order 14-SO-02; U.S. Marshals to serve if necessary; case management order to set discovery and dispositive motion deadlines after answer |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 (4th Cir. 1975) (discusses appointment of counsel in civil cases for indigent prisoners)
- Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984) (identifies factors for appointing counsel to pro se prisoners)
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (addresses limits on courts appointing counsel in civil cases)
- Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoted regarding appointment-of-counsel standard)
- Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) (states that counsel should be appointed if pro se litigant has a colorable claim but lacks capacity to present it)