Boussum v. Campbell et al
ORDER denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration re 17 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MARK A. BOUSSUM,
Case No. 16-12930
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of his request for
the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff Mark A. Boussum, a state prisoner, filed this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants, alleging that he was retaliated against
for exercising his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint
counsel on August 8, 2016, which was denied without prejudice by Magistrate
Judge Majzoub on September 23, 2016. Plaintiff filed his motion for
reconsideration on March 7, 2017.
As Magistrate Judge Majzoub noted in her order, the appointment of
counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right, but is a privilege “justified only
by exceptional circumstances.” See Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir.
1982); Lavado v. Keohene, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). The court is mindful
of the challenges inherent in litigating a case as a pro se, incarcerated plaintiff.
However, a review of the complaint and application to appoint counsel does not
reveal “exceptional circumstances” justifying the appointment of counsel at this
stage of the proceedings. In the event that this case survives dispositive motions
and proceeds to trial, the court will revisit Plaintiff’s application.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of his request for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: June 9, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties of record on this date, June 9, 2017, using the ECF system and/or ordinary
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?