Matelic v. Mendoza

Filing 52

ORDER denying 49 Motion for Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN MATELIC,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-13523
Plaintiff,
DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN
v.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN
BENNY MENDOZA,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL
Plaintiff, a pro se litigant in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Dock. #49].
Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment
of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to assist in
appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth
Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is
a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” (Internal quotations and
citations omitted).
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. The dispositive motion deadline is currently set for January 28, 2016. Docket #47.
At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s request for counsel is premature.1

1

This case was stayed on August 14, 2013 and reopened on January 7, 2015.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel [Dock. #49] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: July 1, 2015

Certificate of Service
I certify that the foregoing order was served upon parties of record on July 2, 2015
via the CM/ECF system or postal mail.
/s/A. Chubb
DEPUTY CLERK