Weatherspoon v. Dinsa, 17-11196. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180503c17
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a pro se civil suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is his motion for the appointment of counsel [Doc. #50]. Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a pro se civil suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is his motion for the appointment of counsel [Doc. #50]. Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in ..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a pro se civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is his motion for the appointment of counsel [Doc. #50].
Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to assist in appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit noted that "[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances." (Internal quotations and citations omitted).
It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have been denied. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. #42]is currently pending. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is therefore premature. If his case ultimately survives dispositive motions, he may renew his request.
Plaintiff's motion [Doc. #50] is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
