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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?