Searcy et al v. Macomb County Jail et al

Filing 270

ORDER denying 269 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAVELLE SEARCY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 10-11242
Honorable Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

MACOMB COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL [269]
Plaintiff Lavelle Searcy, a prisoner proceeding pro se, moves for
appointment of counsel. [269]. This is Searcy’s fourth such motion, the
previous three having been denied without prejudice. [3, 31, 48, 58, 184,
227]. Since this case’s inception, all defendants have been dismissed but
for recently added defendant Macomb County. [265]. Searcy’s complaint
alleges Eighth Amendment violations related to the conditions of his
confinement.
Searcy again seeks appointment of counsel, alleging no new facts in
support of his petition, only that he remains indigent, that his case involves
complex issues and that he has limited access to the law library. [269, Pg.
ID 1638]. He also alleges that he has attempted to contact attorneys, but
has received no response. [Id.].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Appointment of
counsel under § 1915(e)(1) is not a constitutional right in a civil action; a
district court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether
“exceptional circumstances” warrant such an appointment. Lavado v.
Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1993). In making this
determination, the Court considers the nature of the case, the party’s ability
to represent himself, the complexity of the legal and factual issues, and
whether the claims being presented are frivolous or have a small likelihood
of success. Id. Appointment of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1) is rare
because “there are no funds appropriated to pay a lawyer or to even
reimburse a lawyer’s expense.” Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124, 125
(D. Me. 2007).
Having reviewed Searcy’s case filings to date, and considering the
relevant factors, the Court finds that Searcy does not show exceptional
circumstances meriting the appointment of counsel at this juncture.
Despite his incarceration and lack of legal training, Searcy has adequately
prosecuted this case for the past five years. Further, Searcy identifies no
specific difficulties he experiences due to his indigency or confinement with
respect to participating in discovery or other aspects of this case. Indeed,

despite his confinement, he has managed to file easily more than one
hundred motions and other documents to date in this case. For these
reasons, Searcy’s motion to appoint counsel [269] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 16, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager