VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, District Judge.
Mr. Randall Thomas filed "Motion: Request for Reasonable Accommodations and Hearing for Response." ECF No. 123. Responsive briefing has been requested from the Defendants by July 11, 2016 and Plaintiff's reply brief is due July 18, 2016.
In advance of receiving additional briefs, the Court investigated what its responsibility is to parties who request accommodation. First and foremost, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a policy requiring all federal courts to provide reasonable accommodations to participants in court proceedings who have communication difficulties. This must be done in accordance with the guidelines developed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The guidelines were approved by the Judicial Conference in March, 1996. See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 5, Ch. §255, Services to the Hearing Impaired and Others with Communication Disabilities, http://jnet.ao.dcn/sites/default/files/pdf/Vol_5.pdf.
In particular, courts:
§255.10
This is what the Court is prepared to do to assist Mr. Thomas:
(1) Options regarding use of a computer:
or,
For either option, Mr. Thomas would be trained by court staff to access and use PACER and the PDF reader software. These accommodations could be in place by July 13, 2016.
(1) Options for trial:
(2) General:
Mr. Thomas has one other current case in the Eastern District of Michigan, Thomas v. Ferndale, City of, et al, No. 16-10811 (E.D. Mich. 2016), assigned to Judge Tarnow. There is a pending motion for accommodation in that case.
Mr. Thomas also requests a ". . . reader, typist, writer, etc., to assist me in my endeavors in this courthouse. I need an accommodator [sic] that I can articulate my thoughts to, and they can write or type my motion or read motions or evidence to me in correct grammatical grammar in the reading or writing of anything that I bring to this case. . . ." ECF No. 123, ¶ 2.
In Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 342 (6th Cir., 1988), the Sixth Circuit addressed whether pro se defendants were entitled to special treatment to object to the government's motion for summary judgment. The defendants failed to respond to a magistrate's order that relied on the government's version of pertinent facts; Defendants mistakenly thought an earlier challenge they made to a government motion was sufficient to defeat the government's more recent motion. Id. at 343. The Court relied on a Ninth Circuit case to conclude:
Id. (citing Wolfel v. United States, 711 F.2d 66, 67 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also, Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1986).
While Brock can be distinguished because defendants there never sought representation, the guiding principle to be gleaned from it and other pertinent cases is that only prisoners who sometimes have no choice but to proceed without counsel, should be afforded some special treatment. Mr. Thomas filed this case on his own, had pro bono counsel appointed to represent him who withdrew, and then hired his own lawyers, who also withdrew because of a breakdown in their relationship with Mr. Thomas. According to these attorneys, only a small part of that breakdown was that Mr. Thomas demanded that they read all court filings to him. Nonetheless, without the benefit of counsel and with his disability, Mr. Thomas continues to respond to court filings and file papers on his own. The Court also notes that Mr. Thomas' complete inability to read has only come to the attention of the Court in the last few months. This case was filed in 2012. The Court declines to prefer Mr. Thomas over other litigants. Brock, 840 F.2d at 343.
The Court is not prepared to honor this final request made by Mr. Thomas, and finds that its obligation to accommodate Mr. Thomas in court proceedings does not extend to the provision of someone to prepare or type his motions for filing.
Finally, the Court requested information from Mr. Thomas on July 1, 2016 to assist it in its duty to accommodate him. To date, Mr. Thomas has not provided the requested information. The Court's Case Manager, Carol Pinegar, left the following message for Mr. Thomas:
The Court needs to hear from Mr. Thomas immediately to know what Option he wants to exercise to review documents now.
The Court may supplement this Order after briefing is completed.