Harrison v. Nicholson

Filing 50

ORDER denying 44 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; striking 45 Motion for Discovery; striking 46 Motion Request for Deposition by Oral Examination; striking MEMORANDUM of Law in Response to Defendant's Opposition to S ummary Judgment. The Plaintiff is cautioned that further duplicative or frivolous filings will be stricken without further notice, and may result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/6/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (hms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00244-MR

MARQUIS DECHANE HARRISON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRANDON NICHOLSON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for
Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 44], Motion for an Order Compelling
Discovery [Doc. 45], Request for Deposition by Oral Examination [Doc. 46],
and Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant’s Opposition to
Summary Judgment [Doc. 47].
The incarcerated Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 addressing incidents that allegedly occurred while he
was a pretrial detainee at the Henderson County Detention Center. The
Amended Complaint passed initial review against the sole Defendant,
Brandon Nicholson, for the use of excessive force. [Doc. 10: Am. Compl.;
Doc. 11: Order on Initial Review]. The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary

Case 1:20-cv-00244-MR Document 50 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3

Judgment which was denied on August 9, 2021, and the matter has been
referred to a magistrate judge for a judicial settlement conference. [Doc. 43].
The Plaintiff has filed several pro se filings that are presently before
the Court for consideration. They are all dated August 5, 2021, but they do
not indicate the date on which the Plaintiff delivered them to prison
authorities for mailing.1 The envelopes were stamped by the prison on
August 11, 2021, and they were received by the Court on August 17, 2021.
First, the Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint him counsel. [Doc. 44].
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). The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of
extraordinary circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel,
and therefore, his Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied.
The pending Motions and Memorandum that the Plaintiff has filed are
either wholly or partially duplicative of prior filings. [See Docs. 20, 20-2, 30].

1

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (establishing the prisoner mailbox rule); see Lewis
v. Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying prisoner mailbox
rule to § 1983 case).

2

Case 1:20-cv-00244-MR Document 50 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3

They are therefore stricken.2 The Plaintiff is cautioned that further duplicative
or frivolous filings will be stricken without notice and may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 44] is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery [Doc. 45],
Request for Deposition by Oral Examination [Doc. 46], and
Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant’s Opposition to
Summary Judgment [Doc. 47] are STRICKEN.
3. The Plaintiff is cautioned that further duplicative or frivolous filings
will be stricken without further notice, and may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 6, 2021

These filings are also moot insofar as the Plaintiff opposes the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, which already has been denied. [Doc. 43].
2

3

Case 1:20-cv-00244-MR Document 50 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3