Scott v. Groves et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-12123
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

CHERYL GROVES, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [R. 39] WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Pro se plaintiff James Scott, currently a Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”) inmate, filed suit on May 22, 2014 against current
and former MDOC employees alleging Due Process and First Amendment
retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Honorable John Corbett
O’Meara referred the case to this Court to resolve all pretrial matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B).
Before the Court is Scott’s motion for appointment of counsel. [R.
39]. Scott says the Court should appoint counsel because he cannot afford
counsel on his own; he has limited knowledge of the law; he has limited
access to the law library; and the issues in this case are complex.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Appointment of
counsel under § 1915(e)(1) is not a constitutional right in a civil action; a
district court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether
“exceptional circumstances” warrant such an appointment. Lavado v.
Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1993). In making this
determination, the Court considers the nature of the case, the party’s ability
to represent himself, the complexity of the legal and factual issues, and
whether the claims are frivolous or have a small likelihood of success. Id.
Appointment of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1) is rare because “there are
no funds appropriated to pay a lawyer or to even reimburse a lawyer’s
expense.” Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124, 125 (D. Me. 2007).
Considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that Scott does not
show exceptional circumstances that merit the appointment of counsel at
this juncture. Contrary to Scott’s contention, this case is not overly
complex. In any event, notwithstanding the complexity of this case, Scott’s
filings demonstrate that he understands the nature of his claims and has
had adequate access to the court. Prior to filing this action, Scott
completed the MDOC’s legal writing program and worked as a legal writer.
Moreover, Scott’s reliance on having limited access to the law library does
not constitute an exceptional circumstance to justify his request for
2

appointment of counsel, as the same is true for the majority of pro se
prisoner litigants. In fact, he is more capable of proceeding pro se than
most prisoner litigants based on his prior training and experience as a legal
writer. The Court will not appoint counsel at this time.
Scott’s motion for appointment of counsel [R. 39] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Scott survives summary judgment, he may
raise this issue again.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: April 22, 2015
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court,
the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’
obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

3

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 April 22, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

4