UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

D’RAYFIELD KARY-KHAME SHIPMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMTRAK,

Defendant.

 Civil Action No. 19-4 (RDM)

ORDER

On April 15, 2019, Defendant Amtrak filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff 

D’Rayfield Kary-Khame Shipman’s complaint. See Dkt. 7. The Court subsequently ordered 

Plaintiff to respond on or before May 16, 2019, explaining that, “[i]f Plaintiff does not file a

response within the time provided, the Court may treat the motion as conceded, dismiss 

Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute, or rule on the motion to dismiss based on Defendant’s 

arguments alone and without considering any arguments that Plaintiff may later wish to raise.” 

Dkt. 9 at 2. In response, Plaintiff has filed a submission containing a “motion for summary 

judgment,” Dkt. 11, a “motion for appointment of counsel,” Dkt. 12, and a “motion for 

additional time,” Dkt. 13. The Court will address each request in turn. 

First, Plaintiff “ask[s] that a summary judgment be rendered due to lack of response from 

[Defendant] since January 2019.” Dkt. 11 at 1. To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting a 

default judgment due to an alleged lack of response from Defendant, as reflected in the Court's 

Fox/Neal Order of April 17, 2019, see Dkt. 7, Defendant has both entered an appearance and 

filed a motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 8. Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. 11, is accordingly DENIED. 
2

Second, Plaintiff has moved for the Court to appoint counsel in this matter. Dkt. 12. 

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 LCvR 83.11(b)(3)). Plaintiff alleges that “he is entitled 

to reimbursement of previous travel costs since he was awarded permanent disability status.” 

Dkt. 10 at 1. 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, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, Dkt. 12, is hereby 

DENIED without prejudice.

Third, Plaintiff has filed a “motion for additional time.” Dkt. 13. The Court will grant 

Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file a brief in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff is reminded that, if he fails to file a timely opposition, the Court may treat Defendant’s

motion to dismiss as conceded, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute, or rule on the 

motion to dismiss based on Defendant’s arguments alone and without considering any arguments 

that Plaintiff may later wish to raise. See Dkt. 9. 
3

The motion for an extension, Dkt. 13, is, accordingly, GRANTED and it is ORDERED

that Plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on or before June

17, 2019. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss 

 RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

 United States District Judge 

Date: May 17, 2019