Gilliam v. Ordiway et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JERRY GILLIAM,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-11833

vs.

DISTRICT JUDGE JUDITH E. LEVY
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

WILLIAM H. ORDIWAY, JR., and
MARVEILYN TALISIC ORDIWAY,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
FOR DEFNEDANTS [19]
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Defendants Being
Indigent.

(Docket no. 19.)

This matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial

proceedings. (Docket no. 20.)
Plaintiff Jerry Gilliam, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants William H.
Ordiway, Jr., and Marveilyn Talisic Ordiway, also proceeding pro se. Plaintiff now asks the
Court to appoint counsel on behalf of Defendants, arguing that he “believe[s] it is too difficult for
defendants to grasp the legal concepts in [this matter] and [that they] do not understand the basic
rules of pleadings.” (Docket no. 19 at 2.) He further asserts that “it would benefit all parties and
the Court if counsel is appointed Pro Bono” for Defendants. (Id.)
As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Constitution of the United States does not require the
automatic appointment of counsel for indigents in civil cases. Appointment of counsel in a civil
proceeding is not a constitutional right and is justified only in exceptional circumstances. Lanier

1

v Bryant, 332 F.2d 999, 1006 (6th Cir.2003); Lavado v Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-6 (6th Cir
1993). To determine whether exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel
exists, courts consider the type of case and the ability of the party to represent himself. Lanier,
332 F.2d at 1006. Most notably, Defendants have not asked that counsel be appointed on their
behalf. But even if Defendants themselves had requested appointment of counsel, the Court notes
that they have filed multiples motions to dismiss and a motion to transfer venue, the latter of which
the Court has recommended granting. While Defendants’ filings to-date may require liberal
interpretation to adjudicate properly, nothing before the Court suggests that Defendants are
incapable of representing themselves in this matter.
The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s concern and desire to “protect the defendants’ rights
under the due process clause of the constitution,” but his Motion will be denied. Notably, nothing
in this Opinion and Order is meant to suggest that Defendants (or Plaintiff) cannot seek counsel on
their own behalf, either independently or through Motion to the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel for
Defendants is DENIED without prejudice.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen (14) days from the
date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be
permissible under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: February 12, 2016

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served on Plaintiff Jerry
Gilliam and Defendants William H. Ordiway, Jr., and Marveilyn Talisic Ordiway on this date.
Dated: February 12, 2016

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

3