Farr v. Winn

Filing 88

AMENDED ORDER on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and referring Plaintiff's for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (SKra)

Case 2:18-cv-11092-GAD-APP ECF No. 88, PageID.695 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TOMMY LEE FARR
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-11092

v.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

O’BELL WINN ET AL,
Defendant.                            
______________                              /      

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AND REFERRING PLAINTIFF FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel Daniel Manville moved to
withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel. [ECF No. 83].
The Court’s local rules permit counsel to withdraw from representation by
order of the Court. E.D. Mich. R. 83.25 (b)(2). The decision to grant or deny an
attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel is within the discretion of the district court.
U.S. Sec. and Exchange Commission v. Merklinger, 2009 WL 3498721 at *2 (E.D.
Mich. 2009) (citing United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1130 n. 8 (6th Cir. 1990)).
The factors to consider in evaluating a motion to withdraw include: “(1) the
timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the matter, (3)
the extent of the conflict between the attorney and client and whether it was so great
1

Case 2:18-cv-11092-GAD-APP ECF No. 88, PageID.696 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 3

that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense; and
(4) the balancing of these factors with the public's interest in the prompt and efficient
administration of justice.” Id. (citing United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548, 556 (6th
Cir. 2001)); see also Maznarich v. Morgan Waldron Ins. Management LLC, 2012
WL 487963, at *3 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (denying motion to withdraw where “counsel's
withdrawal would be unfairly prejudicial” and “amount to strategically timed or
coercive behavior”).
Based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations to the Court, he is unable to
continue representing Mr. Farr due to medical reasons. The interests of justice will
be served by allowing Mr. Manville to withdraw at this time because his withdrawal
will not cause undue delay with these proceedings nor unfairly prejudice any party.
The Court has determined that Plaintiff would benefit from the assistance of
counsel. Accordingly, the Court will endeavor to obtain pro bono counsel for
Plaintiff.
For the reasons discussed herein the Court will GRANT Mr. Manville’s
Motion.
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is referred to the Court’s pro bono counsel
program for the appointment of counsel. The case will be stayed for a period of 60
days, while the Court attempts to obtain pro bono counsel. If pro bono counsel is

2

Case 2:18-cv-11092-GAD-APP ECF No. 88, PageID.697 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 3

not obtained within 60 days, the stay will be lifted, and the plaintiff will proceed pro
se.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 26, 2023

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 26, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
Case Manager

3