Word v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DGoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANN C. WORD,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.
10-CV-13441

vs.
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

STATE OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN
STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY; DARCY
CARPENTER and BRANDY WESTCOT

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On August 27, 2010, pro se Plaintiff Ann C. Word filed a “Petition for Judicial Review
of an Administrative Agency’s Action and Request for Temporary Restraining Order” with this
Court. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff, whose mailing address is in South Carolina, alleges that the State
of Michigan, Michigan State Housing Authority, and its employees, Darcy Carpenter and
Brandy Westcot (collectively, “Defendants”), denied her due process rights.
On January 31, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 18). The Court
scheduled a hearing on Defendants’ Motion for May 12, 2011. Plaintiff now moves for
appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 23).
Appointment of counsel in a civil case “is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional
circumstances.” Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993). Exceptional
circumstances exist generally where the case involves complex legal or factual issues. Id.

1

Appointment of counsel “is not appropriate when a pro se litigant’s claims are frivolous, . . . or
when the chances of success are extremely slim.” Id. (citations omitted). “Some of the factors
the court should consider when making the decision to appoint counsel include the viability or
frivolity of the indigent’s claims, the nature and complexity of the case, and the indigent’s ability
to present the case.” Haines v. Saginaw Police Dept., 35 F.3d 565, *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 17, 1994)
(unpublished).
Plaintiff argues that she “presents a serious constitutional challenge which may affect
many other individuals other than herself[.]” (Pl.’s Mot. 2). The Court also notes that Plaintiff,
as a resident of South Carolina, will have a difficult time presenting her case in Michigan.
However, the Court does not find that the legal or factual issues present in the instant case are of
the complexity that qualify as exceptional circumstances. Moreover, at this early stage in the
litigation, the Court cannot adequately gauge the frivolity of Plaintiff’s claims or her likelihood
of success.
The Court may find reason to reconsider its decision after ruling on Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s Motion will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 28, 2011

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means and upon
Ann C Word
636 Bowen Drive
Sumter, SC 29150
by U.S. Mail on April 28, 2011.

S/Denise Goodine
Case Manager

3