Opinion
5:03CV160-5-MU.
August 1, 2006
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing on Constitutional Issues, filed March 29, 2006, and Plaintiff's "Civil Rights Complaint" and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, both filed July 21, 2006.
On December 3, 2003, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint alleging that residential property that had been forfeited in connection with her husband's criminal case (5:99CR12-6-V) belonged to her not her husband and that the defendants engaged in a racist conspiracy to deprive her of her home. On August 23, 2004, this Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissed Plaintiff's case. On February 14, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit summarily affirmed this Court's ruling.
Plaintiff has now filed two nearly incoherent documents with the above-referenced case number on them. In her Motion for Hearing on Constitutional Issues Plaintiff devotes a significant amount of time arguing that her husband's conviction was unconstitutional. Plaintiff has no standing to raise this issue. Plaintiff also continues to argue that the residential property that was forfeited was hers and that she would like a hearing. This Court has ruled on this claim and the Fourth Circuit has affirmed that ruling. Plaintiff's argument is denied.
Plaintiff's second filing which is labeled a "Civil Rights Complaint" is incomprehensible and nonsensical. As best this Court can discern she is continuing to complain about her husband's criminal case and her civil case — both of which have been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiff's filing is dismissed.
Because Plaintiff appears to be complaining about prior cases and has referenced her prior case number in her filing, this Court has not construed Plaintiff's filing as a new case.
In her second filing Plaintiff also requests that counsel be appointed for her. Appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is discretionary. Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's case is closed. No need for counsel exists. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing on Constitutional Issues is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's "Civil Rights Complaint" is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.