Dolberry v. Levine, et al

Filing 321

ORDER denying as moot 288 Motion to Expedite; denying as moot 289 Motion for Discovery; denying as moot 290 Motion for Settlement; denying 292 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot 293 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying 294 Motion ; denying as moot 303 Motion ; denying 308 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot 312 Motion. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 1/22/10. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________________ ANDRE DOLBERRY,

Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 02-CV6418L v. SERGEANT HEICHT, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________________________

The Court conducted a status conference with plaintiff and defense counsel on January 12, 2010, and the Court scheduled trial for August 9, 2010. In addition to scheduling trial, other matters were discussed, including settlement possibilities. There are several motions pending that have been filed by plaintiff that are resolved as follows: Plaintiff's letter/motion for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. #286) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion to expedite the case/and schedule a pretrial conference (Dkt. #288) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion for discovery (Dkt. #289) is denied as moot since plaintiff is no longer housed at the institution about which he complained. Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference (Dkt. #290) is denied as moot since the Court has held such a conference.

Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file papers (Dkt. #293) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion for a copy of a transcript (Dkt. #294) is denied. Plaintiff is not entitled to such relief. Plaintiff's motion for a status conference and for a settlement conference (Dkt. #303) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. #312) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (Dkt. ## 292, 308) are denied. Plaintiff has made several motions for counsel over the course of this litigation and the Court has denied such relief on at least four occasions. (Dkt. ##16, 57, 253 and 285). This Court has had several telephone conferences with the plaintiff, and is articulate, appears to be knowledgeable about his claim and is capable of proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has filed numerous motions and other documents in this case over the course of several years. The claim is not complex and involves no more than two instances of alleged excessive force. I believe plaintiff is quite capable of advancing these claims at either a jury or bench trial. I have also considered the nature of the case and the strength of it, and I find that appointment of counsel is not warranted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________ DAVID G. LARIMER United States District Judge

Dated: Rochester, New York January 22, 2010.

-2-