Greer v. Scutt

Filing 13

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 10 Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR CORTEZ GREER, JR.,
Case No. 11-12745
Petitioner,
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
v.
DEBRA SCUTT,
Respondent.
/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME, AND
DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT
This matter came before the court on petitioner Arthur Cortez Greer, Jr.’s January 2, 2013
Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Report and Recommendation, Motion for Extension
of Five-Page Limit, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. No response was filed, and no oral
argument was heard.
The appointment of counsel in a civil case is a privilege and not a constitutional right, one that
should be allowed only in exceptional cases. Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has advised that district courts, in considering
an application for appointment of counsel in civil cases, “should at least consider plaintiff’s financial
resources, the efforts of plaintiff to obtain counsel, and whether plaintiff’s claim appears to have any
merit.” Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Dep’t., 763 F.2d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 1985). In reviewing
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel, the court finds no exceptional circumstances for the
appointment of counsel. Therefore, the court will deny this portion of Petitioner’s motion.

On December 14, 2012, Magistrate Paul J. Komives issued a 36-page Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the court deny Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas
corpus. Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner was allowed
14 days to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner filed his motion to extend
the time in which to file objections and to extend his page limit January 2, 2013. On January 16,
2013, however, Petitioner filed a 10-page objection to the Report and Recommendation. Although
it is not the practice of this court to allow extensions of time and page limits on objections to reports
and recommendations, in this limited instance, the court will accept Petitioner’s January 16, 2013
objections and deny as moot the portions of the his motion requesting the extensions.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner Greer’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that petitioner Greer’s motion for extension of time to file objections
and for an extension of the page limit is DENIED AS MOOT.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: September 11, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record
on this date, September 11, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

2