UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES ROBERT BATES,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-10109

 Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

OBELL WINN, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL [R. 19]

Plaintiff James Robert Bates, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 

his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several individuals for 

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. [R. 1]. The Honorable Patrick J. 

Duggan referred the case to this Court to resolve all pretrial matters 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Before the Court is Bates’s 

motion to appoint counsel. [R. 19]. He says the Court should appoint 

counsel because he has limited knowledge of the law, the case involves 

complex issues, he is unable to afford counsel, and he wrote several 

attorneys without receiving a response. [Id., PgID 109]. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an 

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Appointment of 

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 08/19/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 224
2

counsel under § 1915(e)(1) is not a constitutional right in a civil action; a 

district court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether 

“exceptional circumstances” warrant such an appointment. Lavado v. 

Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1993). In making this 

determination, the Court considers the nature of the case, the party’s ability 

to represent himself, the complexity of the legal and factual issues, and 

whether the claims are frivolous or have a small likelihood of success. Id. 

Appointment of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1) is rare because “there are 

no funds appropriated to pay a lawyer or to even reimburse a lawyer’s 

expense.” Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124, 125 (D. Me. 2007). 

Considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that Bates does not 

show exceptional circumstances that merit the appointment of counsel at 

this juncture. The factual issues in Bates’s complaint are relatively 

straightforward, and the legal issues raised in his Eighth Amendment 

claims for deliberate indifference to his medical needs and for failure to 

protect are not overly complex. Moreover, a review of Bates’s complaint 

and his briefs in response to Defendants’ dispositive motions demonstrate 

that he understands the nature of his claims and that he has adequate 

access to the court. Bates’s blanket assertion that he has limited 

knowledge of the law does not constitute an exceptional circumstance to 

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 08/19/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 225
3

justify his request for appointment of counsel, as the same is true for the 

majority of pro se prisoner litigants. The Court will not appoint counsel at 

this time.

Bates’s motion to appoint counsel [R. 19] is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 19, 2015

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, 

the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’ 

obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 19, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 08/19/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 226