Jones v. Kaine ( 2018 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MACEO JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 18-612 (RDM)
HUGH HURWITZ, Acting Director, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on two motions filed by Plaintiff Maceo Jones,
proceeding pro se. The first is a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add his wife, Sallie
Jones, as a plaintiff. Dkt. 10. The second is a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 11.
First, Jones has filed a document titled “a motion to compel to amend” in which he
appears to seek leave to add Sallie Jones as a plaintiff. See Dkt. 10 at 1. To the extent that Jones
seeks leave to file an amended complaint, the Court notes that leave of court is not required to
file one amended complaint before a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f)
has been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). If that is what Jones intends to do, he should file a
single amended complaint that includes all of his relevant claims, including those of his wife. In
addition, the Court notes that it is difficult to discern what claims Jones intends to assert. Under
Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Jones is
cautioned that if he elects to file an amended complaint, he must do so in compliance with Rule
8. Because Jones’s motion does not seek any relief for which the Court’s approval is required,
the motion, Dkt. 10, is hereby STRICKEN. It is further ORDERED that Jones shall file any
amended complaint on or before August 10, 2018.
Second, Jones asks that the Court appoint counsel. Dkt. 11. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” This Court’s local rules instruct the Court to consider “the nature and complexity of
the action, the potential merit of the pro se party’s claims, the demonstrated inability of the pro
se party to retain counsel by other means, and the degree to which the interest of justice will be
served by appointment of counsel.” Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28,
47 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing D.D.C. L.R. 83.11(b)(3)). Jones asserts that he is “in solitary
confinement,” which will “greatly limit [his] ability to litigate.” Dkt. 11 at 1. He further notes
that he wrote letters to several attorneys but did not receive any responses. Id. He has not
demonstrated, however, that his claims are complex or that “any greater interest of justice will be
served by appointing counsel in this case than in any other pro se case.” Lamb, 228 F. Supp. 3d
at 47. It is not yet clear, for example, whether his claims will survive threshold motions. The
Court therefore concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time.
Accordingly, Jones’s motion for the appointment of counsel, Dkt. 11, is hereby DENIED
without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: July 13, 2018
2