Caldwell v. Southfield, City of et al
Filing
17
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel, Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY CALDWELL,
Plaintiff,
No. 13-15283
v.
District Judge Sean F. Cox
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff Timothy Caldwell, a prison inmate in the custody
of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a pro se civil complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is his Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. #8].
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. At this point, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is premature. If
Plaintiff’s claims ultimately survive dispositive motions, he may renew his motion for
appointment of counsel at that time.
-1-
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
[Docket #8] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: March 17, 2014
s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sen to parties of record on
March 17, 2014, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for
Honorable R. Steven Whalen
-2-
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?