Juide v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 55

ORDER DENYING without Prejudice Plaintiff's 54 Motion to Appoint Counsel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MACK JUIDE, Plaintiff v. Case No. 2:16-13806 District Judge Sean Cox Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAUL D. KLEE, WILLIE CHAPMAN, R. WHITE, D. MARTIN, J. TANNER and R. DONAGHY, Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DE 54) Plaintiff has previously filed three motions seeking appointment of counsel in this case (DEs 3, 37 & 43), all of which have been denied. (DEs 9 & 47.) The instant motion for appointment of counsel (DE 54) characterizes the pending case as a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1983” (¶ 1; see also ¶ 7), refers to Plaintiff repeatedly as “Petitioner,” and indicates that Plaintiff is currently both seeking and receiving assistance through the MDOC’s Legal Writer Program (¶¶ 4, 8). Plaintiff asserts that, due to his incarceration, he “is essentially handicapped from conducting any investigation into his case, which involves contacting defenses [sic] witnesses.” (¶ 5.) Preliminarily, the Court notes that this case is not filed as a petition for habeas corpus relief, but rather, asserts both constitutional and statutory claims concerning Plaintiff’s treatment as a disabled prisoner. (See DE 1, ¶ 10.) As explained in the most recent order denying his motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, Plaintiff’s contention that “his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate the case, especially his ability to engage in discovery” is not extraordinary; rather, it is a factor which “would apply to nearly every pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis….” (DE 47 at 4.) As the Court further explained in that order, “Plaintiff may petition the Court for recruitment of pro bono counsel if this case survives all dispositive motion practice, proceeds to trial, or if other circumstances demonstrate such a need in the future.” (DE 47 at 5) (emphasis added). Plaintiff now correctly notes that he “has survived summary judgment[,]” in that, on September 26, 2017, the Court denied certain MDOC defendants’ summary judgment motion filed on the basis of exhaustion. (DEs 41, 29, 22.) However, the most recent order denying his request for counsel, as quoted above, was issued after the Court’s denial of the above-described motion for summary judgment and, at Plaintiff’s request (DE 52), the Court recently issued a scheduling order which establishes a discovery deadline of July 13, 2018 and a dispositive motion deadline of August 17, 2018. (DE 53.) Accordingly, notwithstanding the Court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment which was based on exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court has yet to entertain a post-discovery dispositive motion on the merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Therefore, the case has not “survived all dispositive motion practice.” For the reasons stated in its previous order declining to recruit counsel (DE 47), the instant motion is again DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 23, 2018 s/Anthony P. Patti Anthony P. Patti UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on April 23, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. s/Michael Williams Case Manager for the Honorable Anthony P. Patti

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?