Taylor v. Chapman et al

Filing 51

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF Nos. 49 , 50 ) and Directing Defendants to Answer Remaining Claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. (MacKay, K)

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 51, PageID.314 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEON TAYLOR,

Case No. 20-13041
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge

Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER WRIGHT, OFFICER JONES,
and JOHN DOE #1,

Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF Nos. 49, 50) AND DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER REMAINING CLAIMS
This is a civil rights case filed by prisoner-plaintiff Leon Taylor without the
assistance of counsel. This case was recently reinstated by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals after the court found Plaintiff has administratively exhausted some claims in
this case. On January 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed two motions for appointment of counsel.
(ECF Nos. 49, 50). This matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
proceedings. (ECF No. 48).
In support of his motions, Plaintiff asserts that he should be afforded pro bono
counsel because the issues in this case are complex, he will be unable to depose the
defendants because he is incarcerated, he will need the help of an attorney to
subpoena witnesses and investigate other prisoners to call as witnesses, the prison
limits the time he may use the law library and legal materials are limited, and he has
1

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 51, PageID.315 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 4

limited knowledge of the law.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a federal court may request an attorney to
represent an indigent plaintiff. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 1992).
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases. Lassiter v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25–27 (1981). With few exceptions, it is the
practice of this Court to consider the appointment of counsel in prisoner civil rights
cases only where exceptional circumstances exist, or in certain cases only after a
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment has been decided on the merits of the
claims. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993) (“It is a privilege that is
justified only by exceptional circumstances.”). To make the determination whether
there are exceptional circumstances to appoint counsel, the Court considers the type of
case involved, plaintiff’s ability to represent himself, as well as the complexity of the
case, and also whether the claims being presented are frivolous or have a small
likelihood of success. Reneer, 975 F.2d at 261; see also Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d
254, 256 (6th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff’s claims are against two named defendants and a John Doe, and do not
appear exceedingly complex. Also, his filings show he has an adequate understanding
of the issues involved here, and he has an adequate understanding of litigation. The
difficulties a prisoner-litigant may have in preparing the case and conducting discovery
“are present in every prisoner civil rights case” and such difficulties do not require the
appointment of counsel. Lafountain v. Martin, 2009 WL 3255099, at *1 (W.D. Mich.
2

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 51, PageID.316 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 4

Oct. 5, 2009); see also Ouellette v. Hills, 2016 WL 5941829, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct.
13, 2016) (“Assistance in conducting discovery does not constitute an exceptional
circumstance.”). Plaintiff has all the tools of discovery available to him. Should
difficulties gaining access to the law library cause Plaintiff to require more time to file
a motion or a response, he may move for an extension of time to do so.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel
(ECF Nos. 49, 50) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may refile the
motion if circumstances change, such as defeating or succeeding on a dispositive
motion.
To date, the remaining Defendants have not answered Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint as a whole finds that Defendants
may not waive filing a responsive pleading under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Defendants
are DIRECTED to ANSWER the remaining claims in Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint by February 6, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but are
required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as error
any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party
objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to a magistrate
3

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 51, PageID.317 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 4

judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect
unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich.
Local Rule 72.2.
Date: January 23, 2023

s/Curtis Ivy, Jr.
CURTIS IVY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 23, 2023, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Kristen MacKay
Case Manager
[phone]

4