Fletcher v. Houston et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Filing No. 61 ) is denied as moot. Plaintif's Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 63 ) is denied. On the cour t's own motion, Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to file his final brief in opposition to Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment. The clerk's office is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: October 25, 2013: Deadline for Plaintiff to file final brief in opposition to motion for summary judgment. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BARRY W. FLETCHER SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT P. HOUSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3179

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling
Discovery, and Second Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. (Filing Nos. 61 and 63.)
I.

Motion to Compel Discovery

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order compelling discovery on September 13,
2013. (Filing No. 61.) In response, Defendants filed a Certificate of Service of
Discovery setting forth that Defendants mailed to Plaintiff on September 17, 2013, a
supplemental response to Plaintiff’s third request for production of documents. (Filing
No. 62.) Because Defendants have responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the court
need not consider the timeliness of Plaintiff’s motion and will deny the motion as moot.
Plaintiff has had since March 25, 2013, in which to conduct discovery. The
original deadline for completing discovery in this matter was June 3, 2013. (See
Progression Order at Filing No. 34.) On June 28, 2013, the court extended the discovery
deadline to July 29, 2013. (Filing No. 47.) Accordingly, the time in which to conduct
discovery is now closed. However, in light of the discovery responses sent to Plaintiff
on September 17, 2013, on the court’s own motion, Plaintiff shall be given additional
time in which to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
II.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. However, the court cannot routinely
appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a

constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. . . . The trial court has broad
discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the
appointment of counsel . . . .” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). No such benefit is
apparent here. Thus, the request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Filing No. 61) is
denied as moot.
2.
denied.

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 63) is

3.
On the court’s own motion, Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this
Memorandum and Order to file his final brief in opposition to Defendants’ pending
Motion for Summary Judgment.
4.
The clerk’s office is directed to set the following pro se case management
deadline: October 25, 2013: Deadline for Plaintiff to file final brief in opposition to
motion for summary judgment.
DATED this 25th day of September, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts
no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs
the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2