Sourander v. Hanft et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICK ALAN SOURANDER,
Plaintiff,

No. 18-11162

v.

District Judge Gershwin A. Drain
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

SHERIFF HOWARD HANFT,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff Patrick Alan Sourander, who has filed a pro se civil complaint, has moved
for the appointment of counsel [Doc. #3].1
Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the
appointment of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to
assist in appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993),
the Sixth Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a
constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.”
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil
rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have
been denied. At this point, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. If his case survives dispositive
motions, he may renew his request for counsel at that time.
1

The motion for counsel is contained within Plaintiff’s response to the
Defendants’ motion for more definite statement. By separate order, I have granted the
Defendants’ motion.
-1-

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #3] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 25, 2018

s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on June 25, 2018 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with
the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered
electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to non-registered ECF
participants on June 25, 2018.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager for the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

2

Plaintiff also requests an “extension of time,” although it is unclear what he needs
an extension of time for. If he is referring to an extension to file a more definite
statement, I have, by separate order, given him 30 days to do that. To that extent, the
present request for extension is denied as moot.
-2-