The United States of America v. Hill et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 66 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 8/21/2019. Sent to Larry Darnell Hill, Jr. 24346-056 at Lexington - F.M.C. P.O. Box 14500 Lexington, KY 40512 via US Mail. (Sellers, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DNISION
No. 5:17-CV-366-D

UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff,

v.
LARRY DARNELL HILL JR.,
HILLBOY'S ENTERTAINMENT,
and CRYSTAL DENISE DICKENS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On July 21, 2017, the United States of America ("United States" or ''plaintiff'') filed a
complaint against Larry Darnell Hill, Jr. ("Hill"), Hillboy's Entertainment, d/b/a Hill's Tax Service
("Hill's Tax"), and Crystal Denise Dickens ("Dickens," collectively "defendants"), seeking a
permanent injunction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402, 7407, and 7408 to prohibit, inter

ali~

defendants from preparing or filing federal income tax returns [D.E. 1]. On July 16, 2018, the
United States moved for summary judgment against Hill and Hill's Tax [D.E. 36], and the United
States filed a statement of material facts [D.E. 37], an appendix [D.E. 38], and a memorandum in
support [D.E. 39]. On August 2, 2018, Hill, proceeding prose, responded in opposition [D.E. 42].
Hill's response indicated that he "ha[d] received no discovery that he asked for or a response stating
the discovery is not in the possession of the moving party." Id. at 2. On October 30, 2018, the court
directed the parties to file responses describing any discovery requests plaintiff received from Hill
and any discovery plaintiff produced to Hill [D.E. 43]. The court also denied Hill's requests for
admission as frivolous. Id. On October 31, 2018, the United States filed a response [D.E. 44]. The

United States mailed a copy of its filing to mu, and the prison refused the mailing and returned it
to the United States. See [D.E. 49, S2]. However, mu did receive a copy of the filing. See [D.E.
S2-1 ]. On January 7, 2019, the court granted the United States' s motion for summary judgment and
denied mu's motion for reconsideration as premature [D.E. S3].
On January 18,2019,mufiledanoticeofappeal [D.E. SS]. OnJanuary28, 2019,mufiled
a motion for reconsideration [D.E. S8]. The United States filed a response in opposition [D.E. 60],
and mu has filed a reply [D.E. 64, 6S]. mu also moves for appointment of counsel [D.E. 66]. On
March 6, 2019, the Fourth Circuit stayed Hill's appeal pending resolution of his motion for
reconsideration. See Order, United States v. mu, No. 19-1104, [D.E. 10] (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 2019).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure S9(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. S9(e). Whether to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule S9(e) is within the sound
discretion ofthe district court. See, e.g., Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr.. Inc., 290 F .3d 639,
6S3 (4th Cir. 2002); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 199S). Although Rule S9(e)
does not specify a standard for granting a motion to alter or amend, the Fourth Circuit recognizes
three reasons for granting a motion under Rule S9(e): "(1) to accommodate an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not [previously] available ... ; or (3) to correct
a clear error oflaw or prevent manifest injustice." Zinkand v. BroM!, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir.
2007) (quotation omitted); see Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d S48, SSS (4th Cir. 200S); Pac. Ins. Co.
v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998).
mu argues that it was improper for the court to rule on the motion for summary judgment
when there was "a recurring issue in my being served with pleadings in this case and others." Mot.
Recons. 2 [D.E. S8]. mu does not demonstrate any error, much less a clear error, in the court's
order of January 7, 2019. Thus, the court denies the motion for reconsideration.

2

As for Hill's motion for appointment of counsel [D.E. 66], no right to counsel exists in civil

cases absent "exceptional circumstances." Whisenantv. Yuam, 739F.2d160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Comt, 490 U.S. 296 (1989); see Cook
v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). The existence of exceptional circumstances "hinges
on [the] characteristics of the claim and the litigant." Whisenant, 739 F.2d at 163. The facts of this
case and Hill's abilities do not present exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the court denies
Hill's motion for appointed counsel.
In sum, the court DENIES the pending motions [D.E. 58, 66]. The clerk shall return the

record to the Fourth Circuit.
SO ORDERED. This ll_ day of August 2019.

United States District Judge

3