Allen v. Madison Co. Sheriff's Dept. / Jail et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying 79 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 80 Motion for An Order Seeking Judgment of Contempt; denying 81 Motion for Sanctions; and denying as moot 91 Motion for Extension of Time to file Response/Reply and Notice of Temporary Address. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 11/17/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:15-cv-246-MOC
BRADFORD D. ALLEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MADISON CO. SHERIFF’S DEPT./JAIL,
)
ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following motions filed by pro se Plaintiff
Bradford D. Allen in this matter: Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 79), Motion for An Order
Seeking Judgment of Contempt, (Doc. No. 80), Motion for Sanctions, (Doc No. 81), and Motion
for Extension of Time to file Response/Reply and Notice of Temporary Address, (Doc. No. 91).
First, as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, there is no absolute right to the
appointment of counsel in civil actions such as this one. Therefore, a plaintiff must present
“exceptional circumstances” in order to require the Court to seek the assistance of a private
attorney for a plaintiff who is unable to afford counsel. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966
(4th Cir. 1987). Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s contentions to the contrary, this case does not
present exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Appoint Counsel will be denied.
Next, as to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Seeking Judgment of Contempt, (Doc. No.
80), in which Plaintiff states that he seeks “a judgment of contempt for defendants noncompliance of the federal rules of civil procedure, as well as numerous direct court orders,” the
1

motion will be denied, as Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants are in contempt of court.
Likewise, his “Motion for Sanctions” will be denied, as Plaintiff has simply not shown that
Defendants have engaged in spoliation of evidence in this matter.
Finally, as for Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and
Notice of Temporary Address Change, (Doc. No. 91), Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.
For the reasons stated herein, the following motions filed by Plaintiff are DENIED: Motion
to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 79), Motion for An Order Seeking Judgment of Contempt, (Doc.
No. 80), Motion for Sanctions, (Doc No. 81), and Motion for Extension of Time to file
Response/Reply and Notice of Temporary Address, (Doc. No. 91).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: November 17, 2017

2