Justice v. North Carolina Department Health and Human Services Secretary

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: January 7, 2020
• Docket: 5:18-cv-00187
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:18-CV-187-BO

THEORODE JUSTICE, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ORDER ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ) SECRETARY, and ) GRANVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF ) _ COMMISSIONERS, ) Defendants. )

.._.-,,,.This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs motions to participate in electronic filing [DE 48], to appoint counsel [DE 49], and to amend the case caption [DE 54]. BACKGROUND RS “Plaintiff brought this pro se action against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, and the Granville County Board of Commissioners, challenging the calculation of his Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, Plaihtit? s amended complaint voluntarily dismissed all claims against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [DE 27]. (Ve □□□ ee □□□ | pefe lenis Hing Motion to Particip ate in Electronic Filing

Plaintiff moves to participate in electronic filing via CM/ECF., [DE 48]. Except for the option of feceiving documents electronically, the Local Rules and the Electroni¢ Case Filing" ‘Administrative Policies and Procedutes Manual (“Policy Manual”) do not pértiit a pro'se one SO gtiar □□ Pepa

plaintiff to participate in CM/ECF. See Policy Manual, Section V.A. Accordingly, plaintiff's”: □□ . motion [DE 48] is denied . Motion to Appoint Counsel . ne Plaintiff also moves to appoint counsel. [DE 49]. “[I]t is well settled that in civil actions:. the appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases . : et Cook v. Bounds, : 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), eg abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Ia., 490 U.S. 296, 300 n.3 (1989). The Court does not find that exceptional circumstances are present in ‘this case. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel [DE 49] is denied. Motion ‘to Amend Caption hig ainénded complaint, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against defendant. US. Department of Agriculture. [DE 27; { 9]. Plaintiff moves to alter the caption of this case t6

teflect that change. [DE 54]. Plaintiff's motion is [DE 54] is granted. The U.S. Department of” Agriculture is terminated as a defendant in this case. re an CONCLUSION | es "“Blaintif?s motions to participate in electronic filing [DE 48] and to appoint counsel [DE 49] aie DENIED. Plaintif?’s motion to amend the case caption [DE 54] is GRANTED. The Clerk -is DIRECTED to terminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a defendant in this case.

SO ORDERED, this 7__ day of January, 2020.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE