Anderson v. Furst et al

Filing 144

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion 138 for Appointment of Counsel and Experts. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JERRY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-12676
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
COLTER FURST, Michigan State
Trooper, MICHAEL THOMAS,
Michigan State Trooper, and
NATHAN ELLIS, Michigan
State Trooper,

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND EXPERTS [ECF No. 138]
I.

Introduction
This matter is before the Court on pro-se Plaintiff Jerry Anderson’s

“Motion to Recruit Counsel and Experts.” Anderson, an inmate at the
Chippewa Correctional Facility, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
claiming violations of his rights under the United States Constitution. 
Anderson alleges that Defendants used excessive force while effectuating
an arrest following a high-speed car chase.
II.

Motion to Recruit Counsel

1

Anderson asks the Court to appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) because: (1) he is unable to afford retained counsel; (2) his case
involves complex facts and legal issues; (3) he has limited knowledge of the
law; and (4) he cannot investigate his case.
The Court may, but is not obligated to, appoint counsel for indigent
inmates in civil actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“[t]he court may request
an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”) (emphasis
added); see also Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 1992) (“The
appointment of counsel to civil litigants is a decision left to the sound
discretion of the district court[.]”).
In regards to prisoner civil rights cases, the Sixth Circuit held “there is
no right to counsel....The appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is
justified only by exceptional circumstances.” Bennett v. Smith, 110
Fed.Appx. 633, 635 (6th Cir. 2004); Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606
(6th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted).
Whether Anderson’s case is “exceptional” depends on the type of case
and his ability to represent himself based on the complexity of the factual
and legal issues involved. Keohane, 992 F.2d at 606 (citations omitted). The
Court finds Anderson’s claims are factually and legally complex and that he

2

cannot effectively represent himself. This case survived dispositive motions
and is ready for trial. Consequently, there is a basis for an appointment of
counsel. The Court, Defendants, and Anderson will benefit if Anderson has
counsel.
The appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.
While the Court will attempt to recruit counsel, the case will move forward to
trial – with Anderson proceeding pro se – if the Court is unable to recruit
counsel.
III.

Motion to Recruit Experts
The use of court-appointed experts is “an extraordinary activity that is

appropriate only in rare instances.” Tangwall v. Robb, 2003 WL 23142190
(E.D.Mich. 2003), quoting, Joe S. Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, Court–
Appointed Experts: Defining the Role of Experts Appointed Under Federal
Rule of Evidence 706, 4–5 (Fed. Jud. Center 1993). The Court will appoint
an expert only in the most “compelling” of circumstances. Id., citing,
Applegate v. Dobrovir, Oakes & Gephardt, 628 F.Supp. 378, 383 (D.D.C.
1985). Based on the Court's review of Anderson’s motion and the issues
presented in this case, no such extraordinary or compelling circumstances
are presented here.

3

IV.

Conclusion
Anderson’s application for appointment of counsel is GRANTED.

Anderson’s application for appointment of experts is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 22, 2020

4