Friske-Bremer et al v. Walsh et al
OPINION AND ORDER denying the renewed motion for the Clerk of the Court to provide the plaintiffs with a copy of the motions 15 , denying the motion for the appointment of counsel 16 , 18 , and dismissing without prejudice the Complaint. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
WILLIAM GENTRY FRISKE-BREMER
BRADLEY ALAN BREMER,
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
JACK WALSH, et. al.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE RENEWED MOTION
FOR THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO PROVIDE THE
PLAINTIFFS WITH A COPY OF MOTIONS, DENYING
THE MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
AND DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE COMPLAINT
The Court has before it the plaintiffs’ joint pro se civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff William Gentry Friske-Bremer
is an inmate currently confined at the Carson City Correctional Facility in
Carson City, Michigan. Plaintiff Bradley Alan Bremer is an inmate confined
at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan. For the
reasons that follow, the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for the Clerk of the Court
to provide plaintiffs with a copy of the motions is DENIED. The motion for
the appointment of counsel is DENIED. The complaint is DISMISSED
On August 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an
order directing plaintiffs to provide three additional copies of the complaint
in order to effect proper service upon the defendants. Plaintiffs were given
thirty days to respond to the order. To date, the order has been not been
On September 18, 2017, this Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to add
defendants, denied their request for the Court to make copies of the
complaint in order to cure the deficiency, but granted plaintiffs an additional
30 days to cure the deficiency.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to have the Clerk’s office
provide them with a copy of their motion because they sent their only copy
to the Court. On September 29, 2017, the Court denied the motion
because the plaintiffs failed to specify the motion that they sought to have
provided to them. The motion was denied without prejudice to the plaintiffs’
renewing their request by specifying which motion or motions they seek
Plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for copies. Plaintiffs have also
filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiffs have yet to cure the
deficiency in spite of being given an extension of time to do so.
A. The renewed motion to provide copies of motions is DENIED.
Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to have the Clerk’s office provide
them with a copy of motions # 1 and # 2, but have again not specified
which pleadings they are referring to. Plaintiffs have filed a complaint and
several motions in this case, so it is still unclear which motions that they
seek to have copied. The Court thus again denies plaintiffs’ request to
have the Clerk of the Court provide them with copies of unspecified
B. The motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
The Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion for the appointment of counsel.
Although there is a fundamental constitutional right to counsel in criminal
cases, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case.
Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dep’t of Corrections, 65 F. 3d 489, 492 (6th
Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs also do not have a statutory right to the appointment
of counsel in a federal civil rights case. See Glover v. Johnson, 75 F. 3d
264, 268 (6th Cir. 1996).
C. The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice because
plaintiffs failed to timely cure the deficiency.
An inmate bringing a civil rights complaint must specifically identify
each defendant against whom relief is sought, and must give each
defendant notice of the action by serving upon him or her a summons and
copy of the complaint. Feliciano v. DuBois, 846 F. Supp. 1033, 1048 (D.
Mass. 1994). Where a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the district
court must bear the responsibility for issuing the plaintiff’s process to a
United States Marshal’s Office, who must effect service upon the
defendants once the plaintiff has properly identified the defendants in the
complaint. Williams v. McLemore, 10 F. App’x. 241, 243 (6th Cir. 2001);
Byrd v. Stone, 94 F. 3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d).
The Court will dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution, because
of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Magistrate Judge Whalen’s order by
failing to provide the requested copies needed to effect service upon the
defendants. See Erby v. Kula, 113 F. App’x. 74, 75-6 (6th Cir. 2004); Davis
v. United States, 73 F. App’x. 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs re-filing a new complaint in this matter.
The motions to request a copy of the motion 1 and 2 and for the
appointment of counsel [Dkt. ## 16, 18] are DENIED.
Dated: November 30, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
November 30, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and
Bradley Alan Bremer #588898
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
2727 E Beecher St.
Adrian, MI 49221
William Gentry Friske-Bremer #236923
Carson City Correctional Facility
10274 Boyer Road
Carson City, MI 48811.
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?