Nelson v. City of Hope Hempstead County Arkansas et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 16, 2017. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

ALISA NELSON
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:16-cv-04009

CITY OF HOPE, et al

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

BEFORE the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of All Orders and to Appoint
Counsel. ECF No. 30. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), United
States District Judge Susan O. Hickey referred this Motion to the undersigned for decision. The
Court having reviewed the pleadings, finds Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of All Orders and
to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 30), should be DENIED.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant involve
complaints of damage to Plaintiff’s property from flooding as a result of Defendant’s failure to
construct a proper drainage system. ECF No. 1. With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration
of previous orders, a renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel, and what appears to be a Motion to
Compel discovery answers.
Plaintiff has not indicated what previous Orders should be reconsidered, nor has Plaintiff
provided any basis to the Court by which the Orders should be reconsidered. Accordingly, to the
extent Plaintiff requests reconsideration of prior Orders of this Court the request is DENIED.
Plaintiff also renews a request for the Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff initially filed a
Motion for Appointment of Counsel on November 23, 2016. ECF No. 20. This Court denied the
Motion on December 6, 2016. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff has not provided any new basis to reconsider

the previous denial for appointment of counsel. This request is DENIED.
Finally, this Motion seems to request that Defendant answer outstanding discovery requests
sent by Plaintiff. This Court will treat this a Motion to Compel. Local Rule 7.2(g) requires “[a]ll
motions to compel discovery and all other discovery-enforcement motions and all motions for
protective orders shall contain a statement by the moving party that the parties have conferred in
good faith on the specific issue or issues in dispute and that they are not able to resolve their
disagreements without the intervention of the Court.” (emphasis added). ” Plaintiff did not comply
with Local Rule 7.2(g) prior to filing this Motion. Plaintiff is directed to confer with opposing
counsel to attempt to resolve any discovery dispute prior to seeking Court intervention.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of All Orders and to Appoint Counsel
(ECF No. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of February 2017.

s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE