Reed v. Doe et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (Bankston, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWAYNE REED,
Civil Action No.12-cv-12544
HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Plaintiff,
v.
DEARBORN HEIGHTS POLICE
DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff is an inmate currently at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility located
in Jackson, Michigan. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violations
of his rights under the United States Constitution.
On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of counsel, alleging that:
(1) his claims will survive summary judgment; (2) trial is foreseeable; (3) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), “the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
employ counsel;” (4) courts generally consider factors such as (a) whether the action
presents a colorable claim fo relief, (b) the litigant’s ability to investigate crucial facts (c)
whether the nature of the evidence indicates that the truth will more likely be revealed when
both sides are represented by counsel, (d) the ability of the litigant to present his case, and
(e) the complexity of the legal issues presented; (5) this Court concluded that the complaint
-1-

is not frivolous; (6) plaintiff suffers from various ailments and is learning disabled; (7) due
to plaintiff’s ailments/disabilities, he qualifies for (and must rely on) assistance to prepare
his legal pleadings; (8) the MDOC Legal Writer assistance is not equivalent to legal
representation, and may not be available on an ongoing basis; and (9) an attorney should
be appointed under the Eastern District’s Pro Bono Plan.
The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel on
December 13, 2012, and Plaintiff filed an “objection” on January 4, 2012. The Court
construes Plaintiff’s objection as an appeal. See Fitts v. Sicker, 232 F. App’x 436, 443 (6th
Cir. 2007).
Because the Magistrate Judge’s order ruled on a non-dispositive issue pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and not a dispositive matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
this Court may disturb the Magistrate’s order only if it was “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED R. CIV. P. 72(a). “This standard is necessarily
deferential . . . .” Welch v. Taylor, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52731,*1 (W.D. Mich. July 10,
2008).
This Court will find a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion to be “contrary to law
‘when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.’”
Kovats v. State of Michigan, No. 1:06-cv-755, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39897,*1 (quoting
Botta v. Barnhart, 475 F. Supp.2d 174, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Catskill Dev., LLC v.
Park Place Entertainment Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2002))).
This court will find a magistrate's factual finding to be "'clearly erroneous when,
although there may evidence to support it, the . . .court, [considering] the entire evidence,
is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" NEFT, LLC
-2-

v. Border States Energy, LLC, 297 Fed. Appx. 406, 408, (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting US v. Ellis,
497 F.3d 606, 611 (6th Cir. 2007)).
As Plaintiff concedes, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. See
Horacek v. Caruso, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87851, 2008 WL 4820483, *15 (W.D. Mich. Oct.
30, 2008) (citing Brown v. City of Detroit, 47 F. App'x 339, 341 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing
Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25-27(1981)). More specifically, our Circuit
has held that "there is no right to counsel in prisoner civil-rights cases," Bennett v. Smith,
110 F. App'x 633, 635 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Glover v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 264, 268 (6th Cir.
1996)), and "[t]he appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is justified only by
exceptional circumstances." Bennett, 110 F. App'x at 635 (citing Lavado v. Keohane, 992
F.2d 601, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1993)).
In this case, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was not erroneous or
contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge found, and the Court agrees, that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint showed that he had an adequate understanding of the issues and matters
involved in the § 1983 claim, and that the case is not complex to the degree that it rises to
the level of exceptional circumstances where appointed counsel is necessary.
The Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Order of December 13, 2012 [Dkt. No.
19], which denied the Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No. 17] without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2013
/s/ Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-