Sutton v. Glennie et al

Filing 62

OPINION and ORDER Rejecting Plaintiff's 59 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Affirming Order. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
J.T. SUTTON,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 16-cv-10949
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
BLASIE GLENNIE, L. SCHUMACHER,
G. WILSON, HOPKINS,
Defendants.
______________________/

OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JUNE 20, 2018 ORDER AND AFFIRMING
ORDER
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis’ June 20, 2018 order denying his
request for the appointment of new counsel.
Background
Plaintiff, a Michigan prisoner, initiated this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 15, 2016. Plaintiff’s claims arise from an
assault on him by a fellow inmate, which he alleges resulted from Defendants’
deliberate indifference to a known risk of harm to him from this inmate. After
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wilson and Hopkins

survived summary judgment (see ECF No. 34), Plaintiff moved for the
appointment of counsel.1
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, to whom the case is assigned
for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), granted
Plaintiff’s motion and appointed attorney Daniel Manville to represent Plaintiff on
October 26, 2017. (ECF No. 8.) However, Attorney Manville filed a motion to
withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel on March 29, 2018, citing a breakdown in
communication and trust. (ECF No. 45.) Attorney Manville filed the motion after
receiving a motion drafted and signed by Plaintiff, requesting the withdrawal of
Attorney Manville’s representation. (Id. ¶ 1; see also ECF No. 45-1.)
In Plaintiff’s motion (which Attorney Manville attached to his motion, but
which the Court also received directly from Plaintiff on May 10, 2018), Plaintiff
claimed that Attorney Manville had not taken meaningful steps to litigate the
matter and showed no interest in going to trial or seeking justice for Plaintiff.
(ECF No. 45-1 ¶ 3; ECF No. 49 ¶ 3.) Plaintiff referenced a March 6, 2018 letter
from Attorney Manville, which Plaintiff asserted revealed counsel’s express desire
to withdraw. (Id.) Attorney Manville did not include the letter with his motion to

On Magistrate Judge Davis’ recommendations, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s remaining claims and Defendants
Glennie and Schumacher were terminated as parties. (See ECF No. 34.)
2

1

withdraw; however, Plaintiff did attach the letter, which was subsequently sealed
as it reflected privileged attorney-client communications.
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Davis held a hearing with respect to
Attorney Manville’s motion to withdraw as counsel and issued a bench order
granting the motion. (ECF No. 48.) As indicated, on the same date, the Court
received directly from Plaintiff the motion to withdraw that he drafted and signed.
(ECF No. 49.) In the motion, Plaintiff also asked the Court for a new attorney and
expedited consideration of his request.
On June 20, 2018, Magistrate Judge Davis issued an order granting
Plaintiff’s request for expedited consideration, but denying his motion for
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 56.) Magistrate Judge Davis writes that, as
discussed with Plaintiff at the May 10, 2018 hearing, there is no constitutional right
to counsel in a civil case. (Id. at Pg ID 410, citing Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999,
1006 (6th Cir. 2003).) Magistrate Judge Davis indicates that she is declining to
exercise her permissive authority to appoint a new attorney to represent Plaintiff in
light of several factors. These include the fact that an attorney previously was
appointed to represent Plaintiff, the length the case has been pending, and the
reasons for the requested withdrawal of Attorney Manville, which Magistrate
Judge Davis found “do not portend a successful relationship with any attorney”

3

and suggest a “lack of appreciation for the ethical standards governing attorneys
who practice before the court.” (Id. at Pg ID 411-12.)
At the conclusion of the order, Magistrate Judge Davis informs the parties
that they may object to and seek review of the order within fourteen days of service
upon them. (Id. at Pg ID 413.) On July 12, 2018, this Court received objections
from Plaintiff, which are dated (although not signed) July 3, 2018. (ECF No. 59.)
Standard of Review
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive decision, the
reviewing court must affirm the magistrate judge’s ruling unless the objecting
party demonstrates that it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard does not
empower a reviewing court to reverse a magistrate judge’s finding because it
would have decided the matter differently. See, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City,
N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead, the “clearly erroneous” standard is
met when despite the existence of evidence to support the finding, the court, upon
reviewing the record in its entirety, “is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).

4

Objection & Analysis
In his objections, Plaintiff contends that Attorney Manville’s statements
concerning his representation are false and harm Plaintiff’s interests, specifically in
that they have tainted Magistrate Judge Davis’ view of the merits of Plaintiff’s
lawsuit and his entitlement to counsel. Plaintiff argues that counsel is necessary to
insure that he receives a fair trial.
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Magistrate Judge Davis’ decision was
erroneous. As Magistrate Judge Davis indicated, there is no right to counsel in a
civil case. Lanier, 332 F.3d at 1006 (citing Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601,
605-06 (6th Cir. 1993)). Appointment of counsel “is justified only in exceptional
circumstances.” Id. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case. Without
the assistance of counsel, Plaintiff was at least partially successful in defending
against Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and has been able to effectively
communicate and file requests in this action. It is not an unusually complex case.
Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge
Davis’ June 20, 2018 order and AFFIRMS that decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 2, 2018
5

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 2, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

6