ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL

JAMES P. DONOHUE, Chief Magistrate Judge.

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the Court at the present time on plaintiff's motion to hold defendants in contempt for lying under oath and on plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants have filed responses to both motions. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's motions, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff's motion to hold defendants in contempt for lying under oath (Dkt. 124) is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion is somewhat difficult to understand, but he appears to suggest that defendants should be held in contempt because they have submitted documents in this action which are contrary to the version of events which plaintiff has set forth in his various pleadings. Plaintiff does not identify specific excerpts from the documents which he believes are inaccurate or objectionable, nor does he offer any evidence of perjury. Plaintiff's motion simply lacks sufficient specificity to demonstrate any entitlement to relief, and the motion must therefore be denied.

(2) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Dkt. 129) is DENIED. Plaintiff has asked the Court to appoint counsel multiple times during the pendency of this action, and on each occasion plaintiff's request for counsel has been denied. (See Dkts. 14, 51, 63, 96, 110.) Plaintiff now argues that he is entitled to appointment of counsel under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") because he has been diagnosed with various mental disorders which preclude him from effectively litigating this action. However, plaintiff makes no showing that the ADA applies in this context.1 Moreover, the Court his previously considered, and rejected, plaintiff's argument that his alleged mental health disabilities warrant the appointment of counsel, and nothing in the instant motion demonstrates that the Court's prior ruling was erroneous. (See Dkts. 91, 96, 110.) Finally, the Court notes that it has now issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. It is thus the view of this Court that plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. In sum, plaintiff has not demonstrated that his case involves exceptional circumstances which warrant the appointment of counsel, and the instant motion must therefore be denied.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendant, and to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly.