Taylor v. Corizon Medical Corporation et al

Filing 42

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECRUITMENT OF COUNSEL--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MAURICE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-12271
District Judge David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

CORIZON MEDICAL
CORPORATION and THE
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT O
CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING REQUEST FOR
RECRUITMENT OF COUNSEL AND REFERRING THIS
MATTER TO THE PRO BONO ADMINISTRATOR FOR
RECRUITMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff, Maurice Taylor, a state inmate who is proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, filed this action on July 11, 2017, along with an application
to proceed in forma pauperis, naming as Defendants Corizon Medical Corporation
(“Corizon”) and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). (DEs 1, 2.) In
his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is not receiving adequate medical care for
his glaucoma and cataracts, and he asserts claims for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs against Corizon and the MDOC. (DE 1 at 3.)
On July 19, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to
appoint counsel, finding that Plaintiff “has offered no convincing reason why the

Court should exercise its discretionary power at this time[.]” (DE 6.) However,
since that time, Plaintiff has filed: (1) a January 23, 2018 motion to expedite
cataract and glaucoma surgery (DE 24); (2) a February 16, 2018 motion for relief
sought, again seeking an operation for cataracts and glaucoma (DE 34); and (3) a
March 16, 2018 notice of visual condition, in which he asserts that his visual
condition has deteriorated since he filed his complaint and that he “struggles to
prosecute this action because of his said condition.” (DE 39.) Defendant Corizon
has responded to Plaintiff’s motions, asserting that it has requested that Plaintiff
release a copy of his medical records, but that he has not yet done so, and that
Plaintiff has otherwise failed to meet his burden for obtaining preliminary
injunctive relief. (DEs 27, 35.) These motions remain pending.
Plaintiff’s continuing and claimed worsening of his vision, along with its
asserted impact on his ability to prosecute this action, persuades me that
recruitment of counsel in this instance would be appropriate.1 Accordingly, his

1

Although Plaintiff styled his original motion as one for appointment of counsel
(DE 3), the Court does not have the authority to appoint a private attorney for
Plaintiff in this civil matter. Proceedings IFP 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,
“[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); see also Olson v. Morgan, 750
F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Congress hasn’t provided lawyers for indigent
prisoners; instead it gave district courts discretion to ask lawyers to volunteer their
services in some cases.”). 

2

request for appointment of counsel is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. This case
is hereby referred to the Court’s pro bono administrator. If an attorney is found
who will agree to represent Plaintiff in this case, an order of appointment will be
entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 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 17, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3