Bell v. Hassan

Filing 29

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 5/17/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12-cv-217-RJC
TERRANCE BELL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SAMI HASSAN,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by Defendant Sam Hassan
(Doc. No. 22), and on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 26). On November 11,
2012, this Court conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations of an Eighth Amendment violation based on
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Hassan survived initial
review. (Doc. No. 15). The standard of review for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is the
same as the standard under Rule 12(b)(6). De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir.
2003). Therefore, the Court has already determined that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) against Defendant Hassan for an Eighth Amendment violation. Defendant’s
motion to dismiss is denied for the reasons stated in the Court’s prior Order.
Next, in support of his motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff states that the issues in this
case are complex, that he has no access to a law library, that he cannot afford counsel, and that
he has a limited knowledge of the law. (Doc. No. 26 at 1). There is no absolute right to the

-1-

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.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant Hassan’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 22), is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 26), is DENIED.

3.

The Court will enter a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan so that
discovery may commence in this matter.

Signed: May 17, 2013

-2-