United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Second
Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions,
(Doc. No. 36), and on Plaintiff's Request for Counsel
Injunctive Relief, (Doc. No. 30), Plaintiff's Letter that
was docketed as a Motion, (Doc. No. 33), Plaintiff's
Second Request for Counsel or Injunctive Relief, (Doc. No.
34), and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
Court entered an Order on February 1, 2019, setting the
discovery cutoff deadline of May 31, 2019, and making
dispositive motions due July 1, 2019. (Doc. No. 29). On June
26, 2019, the deadline to file dispositive motions was
extended on Defendants' motion until August 5, 2019.
(Doc. Nos. 31, 32).
April 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Counsel
Injunctive Relief, (Doc. No. 30), asking the Court to appoint
counsel to represent him because he has no access to legal
materials. On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Letter, (Doc.
No. 33), that was docketed as a Motion which alleging that
the state has failed to produce discovery and asking the
Court to order the state to produce discovery and again
asking for the appointment of counsel. On July 11, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 35),
arguing that interrogatories and requests for production that
he submitted on April 26, 2019, have not been answered. On
July 12, Plaintiff filed a Second Request for Counsel or
Injunctive Relief, (Doc. No. 34), again asking the Court to
appoint counsel or grant injunctive relief so that Plaintiff
can research and investigate issues related to prisoners'
access to the courts. He claims that he does not have
adequate access to legal materials, that this case is very
complicated, and that counsel is needed for litigation and to
remedy the injuries caused by the violation of rights to
access the courts.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citing Munaf
v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). A preliminary
injunction is a remedy that is “granted only sparingly
and in limited circumstances.” MicroStrategy, Inc.
v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough
Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 816 (4th Cir.
1991)). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must
demonstrate: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in
the public interest. DiBiase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d
224, 230 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Winter,
555 U.S. at 20). It is well established that “absent
the most extraordinary circumstances, federal courts are not
to immerse themselves in the management of state prisons or
substitute their judgment for that of the trained penological
authorities charged with the administration of such
facilities.” Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266,
268 (4th Cir. 1994); see Rogers v. Scurr,
676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)
(“judicial restraint is especially called for in
dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison
grounds for his Motion for preliminary injunctive relief,
Plaintiff alleges that he does not have adequate access to
legal resources and asks the Court to order the prison to
provide him computerized access to legal materials. Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities
tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public
interest. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunctive relief will be denied.
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).
Plaintiff has been able to represent himself adequately thus
far in the proceedings and he has failed to demonstrate the
existence of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore,
Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel will
rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal
construction. See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153,
177 (1979); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507
(1947). Whether to grant or deny a motion to compel is
generally left within the district court's broad
discretion. Va. Dep't of Corr. v. Jordan, 921
F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff seeks
admissions, the production of documents, and answers to
interrogatories from Defendants. Plaintiff's Motions to
Compel were filed after the discovery cutoff date.
Plaintiff's untimely Motions to Compel will be denied.
26, 2019, Defendants timely filed a Motion for Extension of
Time to File Dispositive Motions, (Doc. No. 31), that was
granted until August 5, 2019, (Doc. No. 32). Defendants have
now filed a Second Motion for Extension of Time to File
Dispositive Motions, (Doc. No. 36), until September 6, 2019.
Defendants' Motion will be granted for good cause shown.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Second Motion for Extension of Time to
File Dispositive Motions, (Doc. No. 36), is
GRANTED until September 6, 2019.
2. Plaintiffs Request for Counsel and Injunctive Relief,
(Doc. No. 30), is DENIED.
3. Plaintiffs Letter, (Doc. No. 33), is construed as a Motion
to Compel Discovery, Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Motion