Carter v. Carter et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel and denying 17 Motion to Extend - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Marc Carter,
Case Number 14-13502
Plaintiff,
vs.

District Judge David M. Lawson

Andrew Carter, Joseph Montgomery,
Nicholas Krings and Galimbert,

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT [SIC] (DOCKET NO. 17)
This is a prisoner civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court
is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (docket no. 17). This Court believes that
appointment of counsel at this stage of the litigation is unwarranted.
Appointment of counsel for prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis is governed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, which states that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Sixth Circuit has stated:
Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.
It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.
In determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, courts
have examined the type of case and the abilities of the plaintiff to
represent himself. This generally involves a determination of the
complexity of the factual and legal issues involved.
Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). See also Glover v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 264, 268 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Charles R. Richey,
Prisoner Litigation in the United States Courts 75 (1995)(“‘Prisoners have no statutory right to
counsel in civil rights cases. Instead, the appointment of counsel is within the court's discretion.’”).
At this time, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has adequately alleged the claims forming the basis of this § 1983 lawsuit indicating his
basic understanding of the legal process. Accordingly, Plaintiff Carter’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
To the extent that Plaintiff moves for an extension of time, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED,
as Plaintiff does not set forth any information regarding the deadline for which he is seeking an
extension, the length of the requested extension, or the reasons for the requested extension.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of
this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: September 18, 2015

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Marc Carter and Counsel of
Record on this date.

Dated: September 18, 2015

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

-2-