Cranmore v. Shadis et al

Filing 12

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request 11 for Appointment of Counsel and a Form. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

Case 2:20-cv-11469-VAR-DRG ECF No. 12, PageID.43 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL CRANMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 20-cv-11469
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

DEPUTY SHADIS,
DEPUTY MARTIN, and
DEPUTY SHACKLEFORD,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND A FORM (ECF No. 11)
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff Daniel Cranmore’s pro se civil
rights complaint. Plaintiff argued in his complaint that the Jackson County deputy
sheriffs named as defendants violated his rights under the Fourth and Eighth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and that the defendants’ conduct
caused irreparable injuries, including heart problems, flashbacks, PTSD, and
constant pain throughout his body. He sought money damages for medical costs,
pain, and suffering.
On September 21, 2020, the Court summarily dismissed the complaint under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The Court
pointed out that Plaintiff sued the defendants in their official capacities for money

Case 2:20-cv-11469-VAR-DRG ECF No. 12, PageID.44 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 2

damages, that a suit against government officials in their official capacities is a suit
against the entity they represent, and that Plaintiff failed to show that an
unconstitutional county policy or custom caused his injuries.
Now

before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff’s

request

for

a

“SCAO form for a court appointed attorney.” (ECF No. 11, PageID.41.) Plaintiff
states that he is in prison and that he has no income or ability to pay for an attorney.
This case is closed, and there are no pending matters in the case, other than
Plaintiff’s current request. Further, although a district court may appoint counsel for
an indigent civil litigant, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601,
604 (6th Cir. 1993), there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a
civil proceeding, Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003). Appointment
of counsel in a civil case is justified only in exceptional circumstances. Lanier, 332
F.3d at 1006.
There are no exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel in
this case, and Plaintiff’s request for counsel is moot. The Court, therefore, denies
Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel and a form for requesting counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/4/2021

s/ Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
United States District Judge 

2