Ballard v. Hatley et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying without prejudice Pltf's 84 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel; and the parties shall notify the Court within 14 days of this Order whether they consent to a judicial settlement conference in this matter. ( Response due by 10/15/2020 ). Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 10/01/2020. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00393-MR
ROBERT BALLARD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU HATLEY, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. 84].
Pro se Plaintiff Robert Ballard (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 7, 2017. [Doc. 1]. On June 10, 2020, the Court
granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all but Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs reflected in Plaintiff’s grievance no. 3100-2017-MNWB2-02560. [Doc.
82]. The trial in this matter has been set for March 8, 2021. [9/9/2020 Docket
Entry].
Plaintiff now moves for the appointment of counsel. [Doc. 84]. As
grounds, Plaintiff cites his extensive medical history and conditions that
would make transport to Asheville from Central Prison in Raleigh, North

Carolina, where his is currently housed, logistically difficult. [Id.]. Plaintiff
also argues that if he were to represent himself pro se at trial “any number
of medical issues could arise.” [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff states that he is “open to
considering settling this matter” due to his health and he believes that an
attorney “could possibly settle this case.” [Id. at 1].
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). While Plaintiff’s circumstances are far from ideal, the Plaintiff has not
yet presented exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel.
The Court will, therefore, deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
without prejudice.
Furthermore, it appears that even with counsel, based on Plaintiff’s
representations in his motion, transportation of Plaintiff to this District for trial
may prove logistically and perhaps medically problematic.

Given these

practical difficulties and the general benefits inherent in settling matters
without a trial, the Court will direct the parties to notify the Court within
fourteen (14) days of this Order whether they consent for this Court to hold
a judicial settlement conference pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3(d) in an
effort to settle this matter without a trial.
2

The parties are advised that, should a judicial settlement conference
being undertaken in this matter to facilitate settlement, there is no
requirement that the case settle through such a conference. Rather, if a
judicial settlement conference were unsuccessful, the matter would proceed
to trial as scheduled.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 84] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Court
within fourteen (14) days of this Order whether they consent to a judicial
settlement conference in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 1, 2020

3