Thurmond v. Southfield, City of et al
ORDER CONDITIONALLY ASSIGNING COUNSEL - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DAWAN PIERCE THURMOND,
Case No. 15-13167
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, et al.,
ORDER CONDITIONALLY ASSIGNING COUNSEL
On March 14, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. See Order [Doc. #163]. The sole surviving
Defendant is Southfield Police Sgt. Porter, against whom Fourth Amendment/Sec. 1983
claims based on seizure of money and alleged use of excessive force remain.
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). The Plaintiff having survived dismissal as to
the sec. 1983 claims against Sgt. Porter, I am persuaded that this is a case where the
assignment of pro bono counsel is justified, and that permitting Plaintiff to be represented
by counsel would be of great benefit to the parties and the Court.
Therefore, the Court will order the appointment of pro bono counsel, conditioned
on procuring pro bono counsel within a reasonable time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 20, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
March 20, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
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?