Constant v. Matthews

Filing 17

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Appointed Counsel and for Stay. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOSEPH CONSTANT, Case No. 16-14501 Plaintiff, Honorable John Corbett O’Meara v. CHERYL A. MATTHEWS, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL AND FOR STAY This matter came before the court on plaintiff Joseph Constant's May 3, 2017 Motion Requesting Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel and Stay of Procedings [sic] Pending Assignment 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). Plaintiff Constant's financial resources are unknown to the court. In addition, it is unclear what attempts, if any, the plaintiff has made to obtain counsel. More importantly, however, is that plaintiff Constant's claims appear to have no merit, as the defendant is entitled to absolute immunity. Accordingly, the court must deny Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Constant's May 3, 2017 motion is DENIED. s/John Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge Date: June 5, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, June 5, 2017, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail. s/William Barkholz Case Manager 2

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?