Bobbitt v. Scott et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 54 Motion to Compel; denying 57 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 2/5/19. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-576-FDW
WILLIE T. BOBBITT,

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery,
(Doc. No. 54), Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 57).
Plaintiff argues in his Motion to Compel Discovery that Defendants should be compelled
to produce for inspection and copying “Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records [and]
Defendants’ disciplinary history.” (Doc. No. 54 at 1). He claims that he submitted a written request
for these documents on September 16, 2018, but he has not yet received them. He asks that the
Defendants be ordered to pay $150 as reasonable expenses to obtain this Order on the ground that
“Defendants’ refusal to produce the documents had no substantial justification.” (Doc. No. 54 at
1). Plaintiff further states in a Letter attached to his Motion that Assistant Superintendent Marshall
Pike is refusing to allow to Plaintiff to see the surveillance video regarding his case, which Plaintiff
has only viewed once. He asks for an order requiring prison staff to allow Plaintiff to view the
video as many times as he wishes.
Defendants filed a Response with Exhibits explaining that they have already fulfilled their
obligations to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff’s request for records is moot

1

insofar as Defendants produced over 1,500 pages of mental and medical health records to Plaintiff
in a supplemental discovery response on January 29, 2019, and Defendants produced the requested
disciplinary records without objection on October 22, 2018. With regards to Plaintiff’s assertion
in his Letter that he was only allowed to view the video once, Defendants assert that Plaintiff
watched the video on January 10, 2019 beginning at 1450 hours and did so until he indicated he
was finished approximately 15 minutes later and accordingly he had sufficient time to view the
videotape. Defendants have filed as an Exhibit an “Acknowledgement of Viewing Surveillance
Video” signed by Plaintiff states that he has “viewed the surveillance video relating to the March
17, 2016 incident as [he] had requested in Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of
Documents….” (Doc. No. 55-2 at 1).
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is moot with regards to his requests
for medical record, mental health records, and disciplinary records, and that he had an adequate
opportunity to view the videotape at issue. Therefore, the Motion to Compel will be denied.
In support of his Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, Plaintiff states that he is unable
to afford counsel, a trial will likely involve conflicting testimony, and counsel would be better able
to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to
litigate because he does not have access to a law library, Plaintiff has no outside help, Plaintiff has
limited formal education and mental health issues, and he is in segregation. (Doc. No. 57).
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 record reflects that Plaintiff has been able to adequately represent himself in these
2

proceedings. This case does not present exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of
counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion seeking the appointment of counsel will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 54), is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, (Doc. No. 57), is DENIED.

Signed: February 5, 2019

3