Peche v. Herring, 5:21-ct-03147

Plaintiff David Peche, a state inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Maury Correctional Institution staff failed to protect him from inmate threats after he filed a grievance and was placed in protective custody.
Plaintiff alleges officials attempted to move him back to general population while threats continued; he refused the move and was disciplined (written up).
Requested relief included injunctive orders to keep him in protective custody or transfer him, identifying threatening inmates, assistance to swear out warrants, cessation of retaliation, and monetary damages for write-ups.
Court conducted initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A, denied appointment of counsel, and denied preliminary/mandatory injunctions; the court noted plaintiff had been transferred to another prison.
The complaint lacked factual allegations linking any named defendant to the alleged constitutional violation; the court ordered Peche to file a particularized amended complaint on the court’s prisoner civil-rights form within 21 days or face dismissal.
Motions to file documents into evidence and to have the court examine prison records were denied as premature (discovery not yet opened).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appointment of counsel	Peche asked the court to appoint counsel to assist with his § 1983 case	No substantive opposition; court applied standard for civil appointment	Denied—no exceptional circumstances and plaintiff able to proceed pro se
Preliminary/mandatory injunctions	Requested transfer, continued protective custody, names of threatening inmates, courthouse access for warrants, stop retaliation, and relief for alleged legal-mail tampering	No record showing likelihood of success; prison administration and plaintiff’s transfer weigh against injunctive relief	Denied—plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm; courts avoid interfering in prison admin decisions; plaintiff had been transferred
Sufficiency of complaint / personal involvement	Peche alleges failure to protect but does not tie actions to any named defendant	Court stressed § 1983 requires each defendant’s personal involvement; vicarious liability not permitted	Directed plaintiff to file a particularized amended complaint naming responsible officials and factual bases; failure to comply will result in dismissal
Discovery / evidentiary motions	Sought to submit documents into evidence and asked court to examine prison records	Discovery has not been opened; motions premature	Denied without prejudice as premature pending initial review and possible scheduling order

Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 (4th Cir. 1975) (no absolute right to appointed counsel in civil cases; appointment for exceptional circumstances)
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984) (exceptional-circumstances test for appointing counsel in pro se prisoner suits)
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (limits on federal courts’ authority to appoint counsel)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (deference to prison officials’ procedures to preserve order and discipline)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (definition of frivolous suits under screening statutes)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain more than labels and conclusions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead each government-official defendant’s personal involvement to state a § 1983 claim)