Matthews v. Rice et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 7 for reconsideration in part is denied, plaintiff's motion 11 for status of proceedings is denied as requesting no specific relief, and plaintiff's motion 32 to appoint counsel is denied withou t prejudice. The screening process under 28 U.S.C. 1915A having been completed, this matter is returned to the clerk of the court for random reassignment pursuant to D. Kan. R. 40.1. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 6/19/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Gary L. Matthews by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
GARY L. MATTHEWS,
ELIZABETH RICE, SECRETARY
OF CORRECTIONS DESIGNEE, et al.,
O R D E R
This matter is before the court upon plaintiff’s Motion for
Proceedings (Doc. 10), and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 32).
Having considered these motions, the court finds as follows.
reconsideration of a non-dispositive order must be based on:
(1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence, or
(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
Plaintiff does not allege facts in his motion showing either a
change in law or new evidence.
He merely disagrees with the
court’s dismissal of two defendants.
He does not allege facts
or legal authority showing the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.
He also alleges no facts showing
that Graves made the decision either to manage him as a sex
offender based on misinformation
or to deny his request for
relief from sex offender management.
The court repeats that HCF
is a prison facility, and not a person subject to suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff takes issue with the court’s finding that he has
not provided adequate information for service upon the unnamed
the court is referring to all
defendants except Graves and HCF.
However, the information he
refers to was provided for named defendants, not the unnamed
It should be obvious that if he provides neither
the name nor an adequate description of a John Doe or unnamed
defendant, that defendant cannot be served.
defendants: Libby Keogh and Laura Thorton.
He alleges that he
has discovered the identity of members of “this committee.”
does not explain which committee on what date or what decision
is referred to.
Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 requires that in order to amend a
complaint, a complete Amended Complaint must be submitted, and
local rule requires that any Amended Complaint be submitted upon
Plaintiff has not properly amended his
complaint to add new defendants.
Pro se litigants must follow
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, the court
finds that plaintiff has not properly added any new defendants
by suggesting the same in this motion for part reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Status of Proceedings (Doc. 11) is
nothing more than his objection to the Martinez Report.
denied for the reason that it requests no discernible relief.
Plaintiff is aware of the service upon the defendants, and that
defendant’s Answer has been filed.
The court has considered plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
There is no constitutional right to appointment of
counsel in a civil case.
Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547
(10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir.
Thus, the decision whether to appoint counsel lies in
the court’s discretion.
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996
strongest possible case, [as] the same could be said in any
2006)(citing Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir.
In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district
court should consider “the merits of the prisoner’s claims, the
nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the
Considering the above factors, the Court finds in this case that
the issues are not complex
and plaintiff appears capable of
means that plaintiff may renew this motion at a later time.
plaintiff’s Motion for Status of Proceedings (Doc. 11) is denied
Appoint Counsel (Doc. 32) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the screening process under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A having been completed, this matter is returned to
the clerk of the court for random reassignment pursuant to D.
Kan. R. 40.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow
U. S. Senior District 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?