Constant v. Matthews

Filing 17

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

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