Cook v. Bounds
| Citation | 518 F.2d 779 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1083,74-1083 |
| Parties | Leroy COOK, Appellant, v. V. Lee BOUNDS, Com. Dept. Corrections, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Stanley Goumas (Third-year law student) , for appellant.
Jacob L. Safron, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Alan S. Hirsch, Associate Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellees.
Before RUSSELL, FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
Leroy Cook, a life term prisoner, was confined in Craggy Prison Unit, Asheville, North Carolina, and on January 2, 1973, joined twelve other prisoners in a jail break. During the course of their escape the prisoners held the guards at gunpoint and robbed the prison canteen of several hundred dollars in cash as well as merchandise. The plaintiff was recaptured and returned to the Craggy Prison Unit on January 4, 1973, where he was placed in maximum security. In March of 1973 Cook filed a pro se complaint in the district court against the three defendants who were officials of the North Carolina Department of Corrections which the court treated as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cook sought injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the conditions of his confinement as well as pecuniary damages in the amount of $40,000.00. The gravamen of Cook's charges were (1) lack of adequate medical treatment, (2) interference with his right of access to the courts, (3) improper food and living conditions, and (4) the taking of his property ($7.20) without due process of law.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and upon consideration of the affidavits, prison regulations and medical records, the district court granted the motion with respect to Cook's claim of inadequate medical treatment. However, the court denied the motion with respect to Cook's other claims and scheduled the case for trial. Prior to trial Cook filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel to represent him as well as an order to secure the attendance of certain fellow prisoners at his trial. The court denied both of these motions, empaneled an advisory jury pursuant to Rule 39(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., and proceeded to trial. During the course of the trial the district court extended Cook considerable latitude in questioning witnesses as well as making statements on his own behalf to the court and jury. The court also permitted him to offer a fellow prisoner, Grover Norman, who corroborated Cook's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waller v. Butkovich
...were made, the law is well-settled that counsel should be appointed in civil actions only in exceptional circumstances. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 (4th Cir.1975). If it is apparent to the court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim or defense but lacks capacity to present it, the c......
-
Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co.
...denied, 459 U.S. 1214, 103 S.Ct. 1212, 75 L.Ed.2d 451 (1983); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.1980); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir.1975), counsel nevertheless may be necessary in a particular civil proceeding to ensure fairness and justice in the proceeding and t......
-
Lariscey v. U.S.
...circumstances" before appointment of counsel will be made); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.1980) (same); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir.1975) (same); but see Hahn v. McLey, 737 F.2d 771, 774 (8th Cir.1984) (when prisoner presents colorable claim, court should app......
-
U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat County, State of Wash.
...Victor Welding Supply Co., 664 F.2d 1064, 1064-65 (7th Cir.1981); Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 886-89 (7th Cir.1981); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir.1975); Bethea v. Crouse, 417 F.2d 504, 505 (10th Cir.1969); Moss v. Thomas, 299 F.2d 729, 730 (6th Cir.1962).4 McKeever v. Isra......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...familiar with and knowledgeable about legal process, demonstrated understanding of allegations, and issues not complex); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975) (court properly denied appointment of counsel, given lack of exceptional circumstances); McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d ......
-
NON-MERIT-BASED TESTS HAVE NO MERIT: RESTORING DISTRICT COURT DISCRETION UNDER S. 1915(E) (1).
...is notrequired to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff... unless the case presents exceptional circumstances."); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975) (establishing that "counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases"). (79) Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174. (80) See Ulmer, 691......