Dixon v. Kraft et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Objection to Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel 14 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 16-14439
Honorable Denise Page Hood
AXLEXIS KRAFT, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL [#14]
Pro se Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against multiple defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s
March 14, 2017 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Dkt. No. 12],
to which Plaintiff filed an Objection. [Dkt. No. 14]
Appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is rarely made
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). The
Court must considers the nature of the case, the party’s ability 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. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601,
604-06 (6th Cir. 1993).
The Court has had an opportunity to review Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel and, like the Magistrate Judge, concludes that appointment of counsel is
not warranted or appropriate at this time. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this is
an unusual, rare, or exceptional case. The legal and, especially, the factual issues
involved to date are not unusual, nor are they complex. Plaintiff has filed numerous
motions and briefs, which the Court finds demonstrates that Plaintiff has the ability
to represent himself at this stage of the proceedings. Although the Court is not
weighing evidence or making a determination of Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on
his claims, the Court cannot conclude (as Plaintiff does) that “Clearly this is a case
that has merits.” [Dkt. No. 14, PgID 129, Paragraph 3]. The Court further finds that
Plaintiff has not established, as is required by § 1915(e)(1), that the three persons
Plaintiff proposes to add as plaintiffs in this matter have viable claims or that none of
them can afford legal counsel.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order
[Docket No. 14, filed March 29, 2017] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is not entitled to appointed counsel
at this time.
S/Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: May 5, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on May 5, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?