Robbins v. Payne et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 37 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (MWil)

Download PDF
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?