Sanders v. Purdom et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEJHAN SANDERS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:23-cv-11413
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman

v.
JOHN PURDOM, et al.,
Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(ECF No. 28)
I.

Introduction

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff DeJhan
Sanders (Sanders), a prisoner at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF) proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint against various employees of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) claiming that they violated his constitutional rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 1). After early motion practice,
claims remain against Sgt. John Purdom (Purdom), Prison Counselor Scott
Webster (Webster), and Corrections Officer Evan Saunders (Saunders). (ECF No.
23). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), all pretrial matters have been referred to the
undersigned. (ECF No. 9).

1

Before the Court is Sanders’s motion requesting appointment of counsel.
(ECF No. 28). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be DENIED.
II.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). “Appointment of
counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified
only by exceptional circumstances,” which depend on the type of case, the
plaintiff’s abilities to represent himself, the complexity of the factual and legal
issues involved, and the claim’s relative merits. Lavada v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601,
605-606 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
III.

Discussion

Sanders requests appointment of counsel due to his indigence and “to seek
justice for this cause.” (ECF No. 28, PageID.216). This is not an exceptional
circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. “An
‘exceptional circumstance’ is something ‘beyond relatively routine circumstances
such as illiteracy, poverty, lack of legal knowledge, or illness.’ ” (ECF No. 18,
PageID.67 (quoting Andwan v. Village of Greenhills, No. 1:13-cv-624, 2017 WL
194347, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 18, 2017)). The difficulties of litigating a case due
to incarceration alone do not warrant appointment. See, e.g., Jeter v. Lawless, No.
1:19-CV-623, 2019 WL 6044202 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 15, 2019) (no exceptional
2

circumstances found where plaintiff alleged difficulty in litigating matter due to
incarceration and placement in segregation). For these reasons, Sanders’s present
motion is DENIED.
Should Sanders’s case survive dispositive motion practice and proceed to
trial, he may file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel at that time.
Accordingly, Sanders’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2024
Detroit, Michigan

s/Kimberly G. Altman
KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on September 25, 2024.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager

3