Hoosier v. Liu et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING 49 Motion for Reconsideration for the Appointment of Counsel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWAYNE HOOSIER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 2:16-10688
District Judge Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

WENDY LIU, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DE 49)
On July 14, 2016, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for
appointment of counsel, concluding that he had not described any exceptional
circumstances to justify such a request. (DE 25.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration, in which he asks the Court to grant his request for
appointment of counsel. (DE 49.)
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1, a movant
must demonstrate: 1) a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other
persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled; and 2) that correcting
the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(h)(3). “A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest or plain.” Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

Motions for reconsideration should not be granted if they “merely present the same
issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.”
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). But “parties cannot use a motion for reconsideration to
raise new legal arguments that could have been raised before a judgment was
issued.” Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir.
2007).
Here, Plaintiff presents the same arguments as in his first motion for
appointment of counsel, namely that he has not been able to retain an attorney, the
case deals with complex subject matter, and conducting a trial in this case would
be difficult for an incarcerated person proceeding pro se. As indicated in the
Court’s July 14, 2016 order, the above issues apply to nearly every pro se prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis, and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
As to Plaintiff’s argument about preparing for and conducting a trial, the Court
notes, once again, that such a concern is premature. There is currently a motion for
summary judgment pending before the Court, to which Plaintiff is required to
respond by May 1, 2017. (DE 46.) As stated by the Court in its July 14, 2016
Order, “Plaintiff may petition the Court for the recruitment of pro bono counsel if
this case survives dispositive motion practice, proceeds to trial, or if other
circumstances demonstrate such a need in the future.” (DE 25.) As Plaintiff has

2 

reiterated his initial arguments and not identified a palpable defect, his motion for
reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on April 18, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.

s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3