Martinez v. Solomon et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration, 9 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 11 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Jose Juan Gonzalez Martinez. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 01/09/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (klb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:14-cv-69-FDW
JOSE JUAN GONZALEZ
MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE SOLOMON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of the following motions filed by
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina: Plaintiff’s
motion to reconsider the dismissal of his complaint which he filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel; and Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining
order.
A.

Motion to Reconsider

With regard to motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated: “A district court has the discretion to grant a
Rule 59(e) motion only in very narrow circumstances: ‘(1) to accommodate an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear
error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.’” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994)). Furthermore,
“Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to make arguments that could have been made before the
judgment was entered.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Indeed, the circumstances under which a
Rule 59(e) motion may be granted are so limited that “[c]ommentators observe ‘because of the
1

narrow purposes for which they are intended, Rule 59(e) motions typically are denied.’” Woodrum
v. Thomas Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 350, 351 (S.D. W. Va. 1999) (quoting 11
Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
After considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that he has not demonstrated the
existence of any of the limited circumstances under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted and
the Court will therefore deny the motion for reconsideration.
B.

Motions to Appoint Counsel

There is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, and courts are advised to exercise
discretion in deciding whether to appoint counsel in pro se cases and should do so “only in
exceptional cases.” Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975) (internal citation omitted).
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the appointment of counsel is dependent upon
“the type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of the individual bringing it.” Branch v.
Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Although the court is authorized by statute to appoint
counsel in civil actions, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his case
justifies appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
C.

Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders

Through these motions, Plaintiff moves the Court to issue a temporary restraining order
which would enjoin the defendants from holding him for 48 hours past his actual release date from
State custody. Plaintiff states that he has an “Immigration Detainer” filed against him by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and that State prison officials plan to honor the
detainer and restrain him for up to 48 hours past his projected release date so that ICE official may
assume custody of him. According to Plaintiff, his release date is October 25, 2015. (1:14-cv-69,
Doc. No. 12 at 3). First, Plaintiff did not plead any such claim in his complaint and he has filed no
2

motion to amend the complaint. Second, even if he had presented allegations in his complaint
regarding the possibility of a future detention, the temporary restraining order would likely be
denied because his contention that he may suffer future detention, and that is, in October 2015, is
insufficient to support the extraordinary remedy of issuing the requested relief.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. No. 8).

2.

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 9, 11).

3.

Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders are DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 12,

13).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 9, 2015

3