Stevens v. Potila et al
Filing
19
ORDER denying 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (Ciesla, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROLAND STEVENS, #298883
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-10863
District Judge John Gershwin A. Drain
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
DEAN POTILA, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff, a pro se prison inmate in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C.
§1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Docket #16].
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.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
[Docket #16] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: August 28, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on August 28, 2014, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to 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?