Fuller v. Kerr, et al

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 68 Motion to Appoint Counsel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS LEROY FULLER (#237590),
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-13171
JUDGE MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI
v.
DAVID KERR,
GARY DAVIS,
JANET COCHRAN and
JOHN HAWLEY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S JUNE 19, 2015
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DE 68)
A.

Background
Thomas Leroy Fuller (#237590) is currently incarcerated at the MDOC=s

Marquette Branch Prison (MBP). Fuller initiated this lawsuit on July 23, 2013
while incarcerated at the Carson City Correctional Facility (DRF).

DE 1.

He is

proceeding in forma pauperis. See DE 2, DE 4.
The second amended complaint was filed on September 23, 2014 and names
as defendants Kerr, Davis, Cochran and Hawley.

DE 26; see also DE 25.1 At

This case was originally assigned to Judge Ludington and Magistrate Judge
Komives. DE 1. However, on May 20, 2014, the case was reassigned from Judge
1

this time, my August 14, 2015 report and recommendation regarding Defendants’
motion for summary judgment is pending before the Court. See DE 48, DE 69.
Thus, the scope of this case is currently in flux.
B.

Instant Matter
Among the matters pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 19, 2015

motion for appointment of counsel (DE 68.), the backdrop to which is my March
31, 2015 order denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for the
appointment of counsel.

(DEs 49, 58.) Of particular note in the instant motion

are Plaintiff’s claims that he is on psychotropic medications and is no longer a
candidate for assistance from the Legal Writer Program, as discovery has
commenced.
C.

DE 68 ¶¶ 2, 6.

Order
Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s June 19, 2015 motion for appointment of

counsel (DE 68) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As was the case in the
Court’s March 31, 2015 order (DE 58), Plaintiff may petition the Court for the

Ludington to Judge Leitman. DE 8. On July 22, 2014, Judge Leitman referred this
case to Magistrate Judge Komives for pretrial matters. DE 16. Then, on January
13, 2015, this case was reassigned from Magistrate Komives to me.
2

recruitment of pro bono counsel if this case survives dispositive motion practice,
proceeds to trial, or if other circumstances demonstrate such a need in the future.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

s/Anthony P. Patti
ANTHONY P. PATTI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on August 18, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

Proceedings in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff brings
the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which provides that “[t]he court
may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (emphasis added). However, even if the circumstances of
Plaintiff’s case convinced the Court to engage in such a search, “[t]here is no right to
recruitment of counsel in federal civil litigation, but a district court has discretion to
recruit counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d
654, 657 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014)
(“Congress hasn't provided lawyers for indigent prisoners; instead it gave district
courts discretion to ask lawyers to volunteer their services in some cases.”).
2

3