Sutton v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 50

ORDER Denying 49 Motion for New Magistrate and Denying 49 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID SUTTON, JR.,
Plaintiff(s),

CASE NUMBER: 08-13182
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant(s).
_________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff David Sutton’s Motion for a
New Magistrate Judge and Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
The Court DENIES both motions.
The Court carefully considered Plaintiff’s request for a new Magistrate; however,
the Court is not inclined to remove the Magistrate Judge to whom Plaintiff’s pending
Petition for Writ of Mandamus is referred for any of the reasons raised in the motion.
Plaintiff does not present evidence that the Magistrate Judge “has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b). And, the fact that the Magistrate
Judge ruled against Plaintiff in prior motions is insufficient to show the Magistrate
Judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); see also
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings along almost never
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”).
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a new Magistrate.
1

Moreover, the Court does not believe Plaintiff’s case warrants appointment of
counsel.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 allows the Court to appoint counsel for indigents in civil actions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel”); see also Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261 (6th
Cir. 1992) (“The appointment of counsel to civil litigants is a decision left to the sound
discretion of the district court[.]”). Such appointments are only justified in exceptional
cases. See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Lopez v.
Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982)). Whether Plaintiff’s case is “exceptional”
depends on the type of case, Plaintiff’s ability to represent himself, and the complexity
of the factual and legal issues involved. Keohane, 992 F.2d at 606.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s filings, the Court is not persuaded this is an exceptional
case. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for counsel.
IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 14, 2011
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and David Sutton by electronic means
or U.S. Mail on June 14, 2011.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

2