Parham v. Parsons et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying as moot 30 Motion to Compel, the Court is herewith entering a Pretrial Order & Case Management Plan; denying 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 5/6/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11-cv-264-RJC
ROBERT PARHAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU PARSONS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
No. 30), and on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 31).
In support of the motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff states that he is incarcerated, has
limited knowledge of the law, and has no access to a law library. See (Doc. No. 31). 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 that justify appointment of
counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel will be denied.
Next, as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, the Court will herewith enter a
Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan setting forth discovery requirements and deadlines. To
this extent, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 31), is DENIED.

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 30), is DENIED as moot,
given that the Court is herewith entering a Pretrial Order and Case Management
Plan setting forth discovery requirements and deadlines.

Signed: May 6, 2013