O'Hair v. Winchester Police Department et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM ORDER: (1) Pla's 16 Motion requesting "transport orders" is DENIED, without prejudice. (2) Pla's 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. (3) Pla's 18 Motion to Subpoena Medical Records is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on June 16, 2015. (AWD) cc: COR,Pla via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Lexington)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ROBERT ALLEN O’HAIR,
Plaintiff,
V.
WINCHESTER POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
***

***

Civil Action No. 5: 15-097-DCR

MEMORANDUM ORDER

***

***

Plaintiff Robert Allen O’Hair has filed motions requesting “transport orders” [Record
No. 16], appointment of counsel [Record No. 17], and that the court issue subpoenas for
certain medical records [Record No. 18]. A response from the defendants is not necessary.
First, O’Hair asks this Court to issue transport orders [Record No. 16] so that he may
attend any court hearings in this matter. However, no hearings are currently scheduled. In
the event that O’Hair’s presence is required for proceedings in this civil matter, an
appropriate order directing his transport will be entered at that time. But at this stage of the
proceedings, O’Hair’s motion for transport orders is premature.
Second, O’Hair asks this Court to appoint counsel. [Record No. 17] Appointment of
counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right and is justified only in exceptional
circumstances. Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003). A court reviewing
such a motion generally considers: (1) the complexity of the case, Lavado v. Keohane, 992
F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993); (2) the ability of the plaintiff to represent himself competently,
Lanier, 332 F.3d at 1006; and (3) his likelihood of success on the merits. Cleary v. Mukasey,
-1-

307 F. App’x 963, 965 (6th Cir. 2009). Having reviewed these factors, the Court concludes
that O’Hair’s claims do not present the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would
warrant the appointment of counsel at the expense of federal taxpayers. The issues presented
in O’Hair’s Complaint are not complex.

And with respect to the plaintiff’s ability to

represent himself, O’Hair has demonstrated that he is capable of pursuing his claims.
Further, he has demonstrated knowledge of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally,
based on the preliminary information submitted at this stage of the proceedings, the Court
cannot conclude that O’Hair has presented a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the
merits.
Finally, O’Hair asks that this Court issue subpoenas for certain medical documents.
However, this request is premature.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff Robert Allen O’Hair’s motion requesting “transport orders” [Record

No. 16] is DENIED, without prejudice.
2.

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [Record No. 17] is DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to subpoena medical records [Record No. 18] is DENIED,

without prejudice.
This 16th day of June, 2015.

-2-