Young v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Filing 13

ORDER STRIKING 3 Motion to Amend/Correct and Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING as Moot 4 Motion to Strike; GRANTING IN PART 12 Motion to Withdraw AND DENYING 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LASHAWN YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-cv-11028 Honorable Marianne O. Battani Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ____________________________/ ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [R. 12], AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE [R. 4] AS MOOT On March 19, 2015, Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) removed the instant case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(f), as the case involves a dispute over employee benefits, governed by a plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§1002, 1132(a)(1)(B). On April 10, 2015, plaintiff LaShawn Young moved to amend his complaint and for summary judgment. [R. 3]. On April 15, MetLife moved to strike the motion, claiming it was untimely filed. [R. 4]. On May 19, 2015, the Court held a scheduling conference in this matter. Acknowledging that this case is procedurally bound by the holding of Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 609, 69 (6th Cir. 1998), the Court orally requested that Young withdraw his motion for summary judgment and refile it, along with any additional argument he wished to make, after MetLife had filed the administrative record with the Court, so that his filing would properly cite the administrative record as filed. Thus, Young has moved to withdraw his motion for summary judgment, and that motion [R. 12] is GRANTED IN RELEVANT PART, and MetLife’s motion to strike that filing [R. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT. In his motion, Young included a separate request for appointment of counsel, asserting that he needs counsel to ameliorate the “severe emotional distress, mental anguish, financial hardship, etc[.], caused by MetLife’s negligence, [and] plaintiff’s former manager committing perjury against plaintiff . . . etc[.],”. [R. 4, PgID 98]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) is not a constitutional right in a civil action; a district court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether “exceptional circumstances” warrant such an appointment. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1993). In making this determination, the Court considers the nature of the case, the party’s ability 2 to represent himself, the complexity of the legal and factual issues, and whether the claims being presented are frivolous or have a small likelihood of success. Id. Appointment of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1) is rare because “there are no funds appropriated to pay a lawyer or to even reimburse a lawyer’s expense.” Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124, 125 (D. Me. 2007). Having review Young’s case filings to this point, and considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that Young has not proffered the existence of exceptional circumstances to merit the appointment of counsel at this juncture. Therefore, Young’s motion [R. 12] is DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it seeks appointment of counsel. For the foregoing reasons, Young’s motion [R. 12] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated above. MetLife’s motion [R. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT and Young’s motion for summary judgment [R. 3] is STRICKEN as being voluntarily withdrawn. Dated: May 28, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 3 this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 28, 2015. s/Marlena Williams MARLENA WILLIAMS Case Manager 4

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?