# Mesick v. North Carolina State Board of Education

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · January 11, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10260569

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** January 11, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10260569

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-647-RJC-DCK
JOYCE MESICK and CRAIG MESICK, on )
behalf of minor child H.M., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, DONALD VAN VER )
VAART, CATHERINE TRUITT, UNION )
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION )
NC OAH, ANDREW HOULIHAN )
HILLARY KOBOTH, LAURA BEACHUM, )
and SARAH STALEY, )
)
Defendants. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Extension to
Respond…” (Document No. 38) filed January 2, 2024. This motion has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will grant
the motion in part and deny the motion in part.
Plaintiffs are appearing in this action without counsel, and the pending requests for relief
are supported by little, if any, cogent argument or legal authority. First, it appears that Plaintiffs
seek additional time to respond to the pending motions to dismiss (Document Nos. 28, 31, 33, and
35). (Document No. 38, p. 1). Under the circumstances, the undersigned will allow Plaintiffs
additional time to respond to the motions to dismiss. See (Document Nos. 30 and 37).
Next, Plaintiffs seek the production of various documents from Defendants and/or their
counsel. (Document No. 38, pp. 2-3). The undersigned will respectfully deny such requests for
production as premature, without prejudice to Plaintiffs re-filing such requests at a later date if this
matter proceeds to discovery and if Defendants fail to produce appropriate responses to relevant
and proportional discovery requests. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. To the extent Plaintiffs object to certain
Defendants’ legal representation, the undersigned is not persuaded that Plaintiffs are entitled to
any relief.
Finally, Plaintiffs seem to seek the appointment of counsel so that they can then seek the
pro hac vice admission of Plaintiff Joyce Mesick’s father. Litigants do not have a constitutional
right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases. A court may in its discretion appoint counsel
for a civil litigant “only in exceptional circumstances.” Owens v. Harrison, 2010 WL 2680339 at
*2 (E.D.N.C. July 6, 2010) (quoting Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975)).
At this time, the Court does not construe this as a case with exceptional circumstances
requiring the appointment of counsel and will, therefore, respectfully deny the appointment of
counsel. Regardless of whether or not Plaintiffs have counsel, the suggestion that the pending
motion(s) to dismiss are “null and void” is inaccurate. (Document No. 38, p. 3). To the contrary,
the pending motions require prompt responses. See (Document Nos. 30 and 37).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Extension to Respond...”
(Document No. 38) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: Plaintiffs are granted
an extension of time to respond to all the pending motions to dismiss until January 26, 2024;
Plaintiffs’ remaining requests for relief are denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 10, 2024
DCm
David C. Keesler ey
United States Magistrate Judge af

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10260569. Public record. Not legal advice.