The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wilkerson, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Robert Williams:
1. Motion for Reappointment of Counsel (Doc. 38);
2. Motion to the Clerk Regarding Legal Mail (Doc. 39);
3. Motion to Appear for Deposition Hearing (Doc. 44);
4. Two Motions for Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (Docs. 45 and 47);
5. Motion to Withdraw Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (Doc. 49); and
6. Motion in Limine (Doc. 51).
The Court will address each motion in turn.
MOTION FOR REAPPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 38)
Plaintiff sought appointment of counsel at the outset of the case (Doc. 2), on September 30, 2011 (Doc. 10), and on January 19, 2012 (Doc. 17). The Court denied each of these motions as premature (Docs. 4, 10, and 19). Plaintiff again seeks appointment of counsel (Doc. 38). He indicates that in July 2012 he received a Motion for HIPAA Qualified Protective Order filed by Defendant. Plaintiff states he did not understand how to respond to the motion and needs an attorney to assist him. The purpose of the HIPAA Protective Order is to prevent Plaintiff's medical records, which are at issue in the case, from unauthorized disclosure. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for HIPAA Qualified Protective Order on July 30, 2012 (Doc. 37). Plaintiff was not required to file any response to this motion.
The Court does not believe that the Defendant's filing of a motion for HIPAA Protective Order changed the circumstances of the case to warrant appointment of counsel. The Court will hold a hearing on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies on October 30, 2012. Plaintiff may ask for appointment of counsel again at that time. Until then, the Motion for Reappointment of Counsel (Doc. 38) is DENIED without prejudice.
MOTION TO THE CLERK REGARDING LEGAL MAIL (DOC. 39)
Plaintiff states that he received correspondence through the United States Postal Service from the law firm of Sandberg Phoenix and VonGontard. He claims that this legal mail was opened in the mailroom at Menard. Plaintiff considers the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence to be improper tampering by Menard staff. He argues that his legal mail should ...