Sherrod v. Harkleroad et al

Filing 94

ORDER dismissing Pltf's 76 , 77 , 81 , 84 and 86 Ex Parte Motions; Pltf to file no further Ex Parte documents unless allowed by Order of this Court; and denying Pltf's 91 Motion Requesting Private Settleme nt and 92 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/13/14. (As directed restriction lifted & Defts given access to entries labeled by Pltf as Ex Parte.) (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb) Modified restriction on 3/13/2014 (ejb). NEF Regenerated to Defts.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:12-cv-48-RJC
MARION LAMONT SHERROD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SID HARKLEROAD, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion. Plaintiff filed a complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various constitutional violations. (Doc. No. 1). The defendants that
were served with process have filed either an answer or a motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 19, 22,
24, 26, 80, and 83).
On August 1, 2013, the Clerk docketed two motions. The first motion Plaintiff labeled as
“EX PARTE MOTION for Substitution.” (Doc. No. 76). The second motion was labeled “Ex
PARTE MOTION for Leave to File An Amended Complaint.” (Doc. No. 77). On September 11
and 24, 2013, the Clerk docketed two other motions that Plaintiff submitted that were labeled as
EX PARTE MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff failed to attach a
proposed amended complaint to any of the motions to amend. (Doc. Nos. 81 and 84). On
September 24, 2013, the Clerk docketed a document submitted by Plaintiff entitled “EX PARTE
MOTION for Appointment of Counsel.” (Doc. No. 86).
Each of the defendants in this matter are each represented by counsel and are entitled to
service of all documents in this case absent a finding by this Court that such document should

1

not be made available and there has been no such finding in this case. The Ex Parte notation on
these filings restricts access to the defendants as such documents are only available to the staff of
the Western District and the Plaintiff, therefore the defendants would not have access or likely
even notice that these documents had been filed and there is no certificate which indicates that
Plaintiff served any of these documents on any of the defendants. Based on the foregoing, the
Court will dismiss these Ex Parte motions without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to re-file them
without the Ex Parte designation. Further, Plaintiff is directed to file no other documents that
bear the Ex Parte designation without an order from this Court.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting private settlement which the Court will deny
as nothing precludes the parties from discussing settlement without Court intervention. (Doc. No.
91). The Court has not yet entered a scheduling order in this case therefore any Court ordered
mediation is not mandatory at this time.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel however as the Court noted in
a previous Order denying counsel, Plaintiff has failed to articulate sufficient reasons that would
entitle him to court-appointed counsel at this time. (Doc. No. 58: Order, filed Feb. 20, 2013).
Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be denied for the reasons stated in the Court’s February 20, 2013
Order. (Doc. No. 92: Motion to Appoint Counsel).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte motions are DISMISSED as being improperly submitted.

(Doc. Nos. 76, 77, 81, 84 and 86).
2.

Plaintiff is directed to file no further documents with an Ex Parte label unless

allowed by Order of this Court.

2

3.

Plaintiff’s motion requesting private settlement is DENIED. (Doc. No. 91).

4.

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. (Doc. No. 92).

Based on the foregoing, the Clerk of Court is directed to lift the restriction on the docket
entries which Plaintiff has labeled as Ex Parte so that defendants may have access to the filings
and to amend the docket entries to remove the Ex Parte label.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 13, 2014

3