Alger v. Armark, 18-13280. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190927d11
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a pro se prison inmate in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Docket #17]. 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]ppoi
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a pro se prison inmate in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Docket #17]. 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]ppoin..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a pro se prison inmate in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Docket #17].
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. At this point, some of the Defendants have not yet been served and Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is premature. If Plaintiff's claims ultimately survive dispositive motions, he may renew his motion for appointment of counsel at that time.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Doc. #17] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
