UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LASHAWN YOUNG, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11028

Honorable Marianne O. Battani

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

METROPOLITAN LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. 

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [R. 12], AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE [R. 4] AS MOOT

On March 19, 2015, Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 

(“MetLife”) removed the instant case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(f), as the case involves a dispute over 

employee benefits, governed by a plan covered by the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§1002, 

1132(a)(1)(B). On April 10, 2015, plaintiff LaShawn Young moved to 

amend his complaint and for summary judgment. [R. 3]. On April 15, 

MetLife moved to strike the motion, claiming it was untimely filed. [R. 4].

On May 19, 2015, the Court held a scheduling conference in this 

matter. Acknowledging that this case is procedurally bound by the holding 

2:15-cv-11028-MOB-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 107
of Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 609, 69 (6th Cir. 1998), 

the Court orally requested that Young withdraw his motion for summary 

judgment and refile it, along with any additional argument he wished to 

make, after MetLife had filed the administrative record with the Court, so 

that his filing would properly cite the administrative record as filed. Thus,

Young has moved to withdraw his motion for summary judgment, and that 

motion [R. 12] is GRANTED IN RELEVANT PART, and MetLife’s motion to 

strike that filing [R. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT. 

In his motion, Young included a separate request for appointment of 

counsel, asserting that he needs counsel to ameliorate the “severe 

emotional distress, mental anguish, financial hardship, etc[.], caused by 

MetLife’s negligence, [and] plaintiff’s former manager committing perjury 

against plaintiff . . . etc[.],”. [R. 4, PgID 98]. 

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 

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 

2

2:15-cv-11028-MOB-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 108
to represent himself, the complexity of the legal and factual issues, and 

whether the claims being presented 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).

Having review Young’s case filings to this point, and considering the 

relevant factors, the Court finds that Young has not proffered the existence 

of exceptional circumstances to merit the appointment of counsel at this 

juncture. Therefore, Young’s motion [R. 12] is DENIED IN PART 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it seeks appointment of counsel. 

For the foregoing reasons, Young’s motion [R. 12] is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated above. MetLife’s motion [R. 4] is 

DENIED AS MOOT and Young’s motion for summary judgment [R. 3] is 

STRICKEN as being voluntarily withdrawn. 

Dated: May 28, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

 ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

 United States Magistrate Judge

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 

3

2:15-cv-11028-MOB-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 109
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). 

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 May 28, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams 

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

4

2:15-cv-11028-MOB-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 110