United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
SHELLYD. DICK, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
pro se plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Louisiana State University and
A&M College, F. King Alexander, individually and in his
official capacity as LSU President, Mari Fuentes-Martin,
individually and in her official capacity as LSU Dean of
Students, Katie McGee Barras, individually and in her
official capacity, the Louisiana State University Police
Department, Kevin Scott, individually and in his official
capacity as an officer of the LSU Police Department, and
Haley Logan Robert (collectively “Defendants”)
alleging violations of state law and his federal
constitutional rights. This suit was originally filed in the
19th Judicial District Court in the Parish of East Baton
Rouge, and Defendants removed this matter on June 7, 2018.
14, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.  Apparently aware that he was required to
file an opposition, Plaintiff filed a document that, based on
the content of the document, the Clerk of Court docketed as a
Motion to Appoint Counsel/MEMORANDUM in Opposition.
this document, Plaintiff requested the Court appoint counsel
to represent him in this case, and Plaintiff asked the Court
not to dismiss his case because he asserts the Defendants
have broken the law and knowingly violated his constitutional
rights. Plaintiff did not assert any legal authority or
advance any argument as to specific claims to support his
opposition to the Defendants' motion.
Judge Bourgeois performed the appropriate analysis and found
that Plaintiff was not entitled to the appointment of counsel
in this civil case; thus, Plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Counsel was denied on August 27, 2018. To date,
Plaintiff has failed to properly oppose Defendants'
the Court would grant Defendants' motion pursuant to
Local Rule 7(f) and based on the apparent merits of
Defendants' motion; however, the Court acknowledges that
“pro se pleadings are held to less stringent
standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers, ”
“pro se pleadings must be treated
liberally.”  Nevertheless, Plaintiff is advised that,
“a pro se litigant is not ‘exempt ...
from compliance with the relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law.'  A pro se litigant is not entitled
to greater rights than would be a litigant represented by a
Petition demonstrates that he is capable of
articulating his claims and is familiar with both the state
and federal laws under which he is bringing this suit. As
such, Plaintiff will be given a final opportunity to oppose
Defendants' motion in light of the Court's comments
herein and in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Rules of the Middle District, and
Plaintiff shall have until November 12, 2018 to submit a
memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion. No.
extensions of time will be considered unless warranted by
exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's failure to properly
oppose Defendants' motion shall result in the dismissal
of this case with prejudice.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Rec. Doc. No. 1.
 Rec. Doc. No. 2.
 Rec. Doc. No. 3.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972).