Oliver v. Vasbinder et al

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk. (PPel)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOEY D. OLIVER, Plaintiff, vs. DOUG VASBINDER, et al., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. 3). Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming a violations of his rights under the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his constitutional and statutory rights and seeks money damages an injunctive relief. Id. On November 20, 2008, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes by District Judge Avern Cohn. (Dkt. 6). In support of his request for counsel, plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel; the issues in this case are complex; and that he has limited 1 Michael Hluchaniuk United States Magistrate Judge Case No. 08-13951 Avern Cohn United States District Judge knowledge of federal law. (Dkt. 3). Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), a federal court may request an attorney to represent an indigent plaintiff. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1992). Except in rare circumstances, it is the practice of this Court to consider the appointment of counsel in prisoner civil rights cases only where exceptional circumstances exist, or in certain cases only after a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment has been decided. In order to make the determination whether there are exceptional circumstances to appoint counsel, the Court considers the type of case involved, plaintiff's ability to represent himself, as well as the complexity of the case, and also whether the claims being presented are frivolous or have a small likelihood of success. Reneer, 975 F.2d at 261; see also, Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1995). It appears that, from reading the complaint, plaintiff has an adequate understanding of the issues and matters involved in this case, and is able to articulate the claims and arguments in a reasonable fashion. It also appears that the issues raised in his complaint are straightforward and understandable and not of an unduly complex nature. Should dispositive motion(s) be decided in plaintiff's favor, plaintiff may re-file the motion for the appointment of counsel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 10 days of service as provided for in 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(d)(2). A party may not assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge. Date: November 24, 2008 s/Michael Hluchaniuk Michael Hluchaniuk United States Magistrate Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 24, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send electronic notification to the following: not applicable, and I certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following non-ECF participant: Joey D. Oliver, ID# 210352, G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 3500 N. Elm Road, Jackson, MI 49201. s/James P. Peltier Courtroom Deputy Clerk U.S. District Court 600 Church Street Flint, MI 48502 (810) 341-7850 pete_peltier@mied.uscourts.gov 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?