Juide v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
Filing
9
ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MACK JUIDE,
Plaintiff
v.
Case No. 2:16-13806
District Judge Gerald Rosen
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DE 3)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Mack Juide’s
motion for appointment of counsel. (DE 3.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various correctional officials alleging
claims regarding violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The
crux of the allegations is that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff, who is a
paraplegic, when he filed a grievance regarding a nonfunctioning wheelchair lift.
Plaintiff filed this motion for appointment of counsel on October 25, 2016,
contemporaneously with filing his Complaint. (DE 1, 3.) In his motion, he asks
the court to appoint an attorney in this civil matter because is unable to afford
counsel and his imprisonment, lack of education and limited access to a law library
which is wheelchair accessible impinge on his ability to litigate this case
successfully. Judge Rosen issued an order referring all pretrial proceedings to me
on December 12, 2016. (DE 7.)
II.
ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, although Plaintiff styles his motion as one for
appointment of counsel, the Court does not have the authority to appoint a private
attorney for Plaintiff in this civil matter. Proceedings in forma pauperis are
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which provides that “[t]he court may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) (emphasis added). However, even if the circumstances of Plaintiff’s
case convinced the Court to engage in such a search, “[t]here is no right to
recruitment of counsel in federal civil litigation, but a district court has discretion
to recruit counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760
F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added); see also Olson v. Morgan, 750
F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Congress hasn’t provided lawyers for indigent
2
prisoners; instead it gave district courts discretion to ask lawyers to volunteer their
services in some cases.”).
The Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption that “an indigent
litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be
deprived of his physical liberty.” Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 2627 (1981). With respect to prisoner civil rights cases in particular, the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that “there is no right to counsel. . . . The
appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is justified only by exceptional
circumstances.” Bennett v. Smith, 110 F. App’x 633, 635 (6th Cir. 2004). 1
Accordingly, although the Court has the statutory authority to request counsel for
pro se plaintiffs in civil cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the exercise of this
authority is limited to exceptional situations.
In evaluating a matter for “exceptional circumstances,” a court should
consider: (1) the probable merit of the claims, (2) the nature of the case, (3) the
complexity of the legal and factual issues raised, and (4) the ability of the litigant
to represent him or herself. Lince v. Youngert, 136 F. App’x 779, 782 (6th Cir.
2005); Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993); Lanier v.
Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003).
1
As noted above, although some of the case law colloquially discusses the Court’s
“appointment” of counsel in prisoner rights cases, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 the
Court may only request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff.
3
Applying the foregoing authority, Plaintiff has not described circumstances
sufficiently exceptional to justify a request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
contends that he is indigent and unable to afford counsel and his imprisonment
will limit his ability to litigate this case, especially his ability to engage in
discovery. Such factors would apply to nearly every pro se prisoner proceeding in
forma pauperis, and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances, even taking
Plaintiff’s paraplegic status into account. Further, despite Plaintiff’s claim to the
contrary, the operative claims do not appear to involve novel or especially
complex issues. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint illustrates his ability to articulate
his claims in a coherent manner and even the instant motion is clear in outlining
his reasons for requesting the appointment of counsel. Finally, there is no
indication that Plaintiff will be deprived of his physical liberty over and above his
current sentence if he loses this civil case.
Accordingly, at this time, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (DE 3.) 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 13, 2016
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
I hereby certify that a copy of this document was sent to parties of record on
December 13, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
5
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?