Philips v. North Carolina State et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 55 Motion to Appoint Counsel, denying 55 Motion for Court to take over case and granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to motions to dismiss. In the court's discretion, Plaintiff has until August 15, 2015, to file his response(s) to the currently pending motions to dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/15/2015. Copy sent to Sherif A. Philips, 753 Pine Point Road, Greenville, NC 27834 via US Mail on 7/15/2015. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DNISION
5:15-CV-95-F
SHERIF A. PHILIPS, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the pro se Plaintiffs "Request for Extension and take
over my case" [DE-55]. He requests that the court (1) appoint a lawyer to represent him; (2)
''take over [his] case and to include all records related to [his] case between federal and state
court;" (3) "take over the two motions ofNC Rule 59 and 60;" and (4) allow him an extension to
file a reply brief.
As to Plaintiffs first request, there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, and
courts should exercise their discretion to appoint counsel for pro se civil litigants "only in
exceptional cases." Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). The existence of
exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel depends upon "the type and
complexity of the case, and the abilities of the individuals bringing it." Whisenant v. Yuam, 739
F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallardv. US. Dist. Courtfor the

S. Dist. ofIowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (quoting Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1982)); see
also Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1153 (4th Cir. 1978) ("If it is apparent ... that a prose
litigant has .a colorable claim but lacks capacity to present it, the district court should appoint
counsel to assist him."). Plaintiffs claim do not appear to be exceptionally complex, nor do
other exceptional circumstances exist. Furthermore, Plaintiff has demonstrated through the filing

of his complaint and other documents that he is capable of proceeding pro se. Accordingly, his
request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
As to his request that the court

'~take

over" his case, the court cannot discern the precise

relief he is seeking. The court will, of course, preside over this civil action. To the extent that
Plaintiff seeks any further relief, the request is DENIED. Plaintiff also asks that the court
"include all the records related to my case between federal and state court." This court will
consider relevant, admissible evidence filed by any of the parties at the appropriate time. To the
extent that Plaintiff seeks any additional relief in this regard, the request is DENIED.
Plaintiff requests that the court "take over the two motions ofNC Rule 59 and 60." To
the extent that Plaintiff is asking the court to rule on motions he has filed in North Carolina state
court in another action, the court is without jurisdiction to do so and the request is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of time to file a "reply." The court believes
he is seeking an extension of time to file a response to the many motions to dismiss that are
pending. In the court's discretion, Plaintiff has until August 15, 2015, to file his response(s) to
the currently pending motions to dismiss .
SO ORDERED. This the

k

.,~

day of July, 2015.

Jru0-es C. Fox
Senior United States District Judge

2