Robbins v. Payne et al
Filing
40
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 37 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ROBBINS,
Plaintiff,
No. 11-15140
v.
District Judge Robert H. Cleland
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
JOHN PAYNE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ROBBINS,
Plaintiff,
No. 11-15140
v.
District Judge Robert H. Cleland
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
JOHN PAYNE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff Michael Robbins, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), has filed a pro se civil complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel
[Doc. #37].
On October 17, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion to appoint
counsel as premature, citing Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993),
and noting that it is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for
pro se civil rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary
judgment have been denied. See Doc. #33. The dispositive motion cut-off date is June
30, 2013. Until Plaintiff has survived any dispositive motions, including ones that have
yet to be filed, his request for counsel is still premature.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel [Doc. #37] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 29, 2013
s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
May 29, 2013, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/ Michael Williams
Relief Case Manager for the Honorable
R. Steven Whalen
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?