Maben v. Corizon Health Care et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING without Prejudice Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 4 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES MABEN,
Case No. 1:17-cv-11713
Judge Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH
CARE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (DE 3) and TO COMPEL SERVICE (DE 4)
James Maben (#300475), who is currently in the MDOC’s custody at Thumb
Correctional Facility (TCF), has filed the instant lawsuit in pro per against 4
defendants: Corizon Health Care, a doctor located at TCF, a nurse practitioner
located at Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF), and a physician’s assistant
located at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF). (DE 1.) To date, the Court has
entered: (1) an order waiving prepayment of the filing fee and directing payment
of the initial partial filing fee and subsequent payments (DE 6), which also granted
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 2); and (2) an order directing
service without prepayment of costs and authorizing the U.S. Marshal Service
(USMS) to collect costs after service is made (DE 7). In addition, the USMS has

1 

acknowledged receipt of service of process documents. (DE 9.) Thus, service
upon the Defendants is ongoing.
Judge Ludington has referred this case to me for general case management.
(DE 8.) Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel and
motion to compel service. Upon consideration, the motion to compel service (DE
4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. The motion asks the
Court to order the USMS “to locate and serve all the Defendants[,]” and, as noted
above, efforts at service of process upon Defendants (at the addresses provided
within the complaint) are ongoing. Should it turn out that any of these attempts at
service is unsuccessful as a result of an incorrect address, Plaintiff may renew his
request, at which time the Court might entertain an order requiring the MDOC to
provide any defendant’s last known address to the USMS under seal.
Furthermore, the motion to appoint counsel (DE 3) is likewise
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is true that “[t]he court may request
an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C.A. §
1915(e)(1). However, such requests are justified only in exceptional
circumstances. Moreover, while the Court recognizes Plaintiff’s assertion that
he is a qualified individual under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
and that his “disorder makes forming a coherent pleading impossible[,]” the
Court has been able to understand the relief sought in the instant two motions
2 

(DE 3, DE 4), and further notes that the relief sought by the application to
proceed in forma pauperis was granted by the Court. Moreover, at this time,
the Court has no reason to believe it will be unable to understand Plaintiff’s
only other filing in this matter – his complaint. Plaintiff may renew his
request if this case survives dispositive motion practice or if other
circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel arise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on July 5, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

3