White v. Jindal et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO EXPEDITE TRIAL OR SUPERVISED ARBITRATION (Doc. 214) AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND OTHER RELIEF (Doc. 219). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 13-15073
HON. AVERN COHN
PAUL KLEE, LEE McROBERTS,
and C. CONDON,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE TRIAL OR SUPERVISED
ARBITRATION (Doc. 214)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
OTHER RELIEF (Doc. 219)
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial
proceedings. (Doc. 12). Following motion practice and several reports and
recommendations which were adopted by the Court, plaintiff’s remaining claims relate to
his refusal to “snitch” on fellow inmates and the alleged failure of Paul Klee, the Warden
at the Gus Harrison Facility, Lee McRoberts, the Deputy Warden, and Defendant C.
Condon, a Resident Unit Manager (“defendants”) to properly protect him from gang
A year ago the magistrate judge certified that the pretrial proceedings were
completed. (Doc. 201). However, after that certification, plaintiff filed a Motion to
Reopen Discovery & Amend Witness List Due to Newly Discovered Evidence (Doc.
205), which the Court referred to the magistrate judge. (Doc. 208). The magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending the following:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery & Amend Witness List due to Newly
Discovered Evidence be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff
should be permitted to amend his witness list in order to add Mr. Ramon Arthur
Pfromm. However, the Court should reopen discovery in this matter only for the
limited purpose of deposing Mr. Pfromm, which, if Defendants wish to pursue,
should occur within 30 days of any order adopting this Report and
(Doc. 211 at p. 2). Neither party objected. The Court adopted the MJRR. (Doc. 212).
Discovery is now closed.
Before the Court are the following motions:
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Expedite Trial or Supervised Arbitration.” (Doc. 214).
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Protection and/or Contempt by
Parties and Non-Parties and/or Permanent Injunctive Relief to Prevent Serious
Injury/Death.” (Doc. 219).
For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.
In the motion to expedite trial, plaintiff asks for a trial date and/or for the Court to
order the parties to arbitration. Although a trial date has not been set, the Court will
enter a pretrial order to move the case to trial. As to plaintiff’s request to arbitrate, the
Court cannot order the parties to arbitrate but encourages the parties to discuss
settlement on their own.
In the motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff asks for counsel and for
“protection” because he says he is being harassed by prison personnel. The
appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is generally not a constitutional right and is
justified only by exceptional circumstances. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-06
(6th Cir. 1993); Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Serv., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (finding that a
constitutional right to counsel extends only to cases in which the defendant may be
deprived of physical liberty).
Here, the Court initially appointed counsel to represent plaintiff. (Doc. 121).
However, after representing plaintiff for several motions, appointed counsel filed a
motion to withdraw from the case, following a “fundamental breakdown in the
attorney-client relationship,” which counsel alleged was “caused by [Plaintiff’s]
belligerent insistence upon taking action [counsel] believes to be legally unjustified.”
(Doc. 133 at p. 6-7.). Since that time, plaintiff has been able to present his arguments
to the Court. Under these circumstances, appointment of counsel is neither warranted
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?