ORDER

STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and motion for a misconduct hearing. (Docs. 57, 60).

Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied based upon the general principle that civil litigants have no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel at government expense. See Anderson v. Sheppard, 856 F.2d 741 (6th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff's complaint is legible and articulate, she has served and responded to discovery and filed dispositive motions. Thus, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has adequately represented herself in this matter through the date of this decision. As such, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the type of "exceptional circumstances" that would justify the rare appointment of free counsel for a pro se civil litigant. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff's motion for a misconduct hearing is also unwarranted. Plaintiff asks for a misconduct hearing "concerning the willfully false statements of Defendant Office[er] Dennis M. Zucker. . . ." (Doc. 57). As noted by Defendants, however, there is no basis for such a misconduct hearing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Court will properly evaluate such statements, and all other evidence presented in this matter, at the time it addresses the parties' pending motions for summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion requesting counsel (Doc. 57) and motion for a misconduct hearing (Doc. 60) are herein DENIED.