Nalls v. Napolean

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 86 . (Plaintiff's Response to 84 due by 9/30/2015). Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

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

Civil Action No.: 11-12670
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

BENNY N. NAPOLEAN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT [86]
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the Court is plaintiff Kenyatta Nalls’ (a prisoner proceeding pro
se) second motion to appoint counsel. [86] Nalls filed his original
complaint in June 2011 against a number of correctional officers and prison
medical staff alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
arising out of an injury sustained to his hands when cell doors closed on
them. His original complaint did not properly identify all defendants and a
recommendation was made to dismiss them for failure to prosecute. [16].
Nalls moved to instead amend his complaint and the Court permitted
discovery to ascertain the identities of the unidentified defendants. [22. 28,
30]. As a result, on January 6, 2015, Nalls filed a verified first amended
complaint properly identifying all defendants. [42].
Discovery ensued and, on August 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion

for summary judgment. [84]. Nalls’s response was due on August 31,
2015. To date he has not responded.
Nalls’s renewed motion to appoint seeks counsel for trial, which he
claims is impending based on the parties’ filing of witness lists. However,
trial is not impending at this juncture, as the Court must still rule on
Defendants’ dispositive motion. Only if that motion is determined in Nalls’s
favor, will a trial be imminent. At that juncture, Nalls may renew his motion
to appoint.
Presently, the Court finds no change in circumstance from the time of
its denial of Nalls’s first motion to appoint that could be deemed
“exceptional” such that counsel should be appointed at this juncture.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Court’s previous Order on the
subject, [45], Nalls’s motion [86] is DENIED without prejudice.
Furthermore, Nalls’s response to Defendants’ pending motion is due ON
OR BEFORE September 30, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 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
2

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 September 10, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

3