UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SALAMI,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 15-12248

Honorable Terrence G. Berg

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

DEPUTY CLEMENTS, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE [R. 56]

Plaintiff Michael Salami, a prisoner proceeding pro se, moves again 

for appointment of counsel. [R. 56]. Salami argues that his placement in 

administrative segregation for six months further restricts his law library 

access and his ability to litigate his case. For the following reasons, his 

motion is denied without prejudice.

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 

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 57 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 154
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 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). 

The Court finds that, despite his placement in segregation, Salami 

has still has not shown exceptional circumstances that merit the 

appointment of counsel at this juncture. Notwithstanding his placement in 

segregation, which was supposed to end on September 14, 2015 but 

appears (by his filing) to have been extended another six months [see R. 

54, 56], Salami has been able to file numerous motions and letters with the 

Court. [R. 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, 54]. Furthermore, at this juncture, the 

only effective Order is for him to file an amended complaint consolidating 

all of his claims on or before October 8, 2015, a date that has twice been 

extended to accommodate Salami’s needs. [See R. 46, 53, 54]. Further, 

there is no ongoing discovery or motions practice at this juncture. For 

these reasons, as well as the reasons stated in this Court’s previous 

denials [R. 20, 26], Salami’s motion to appoint counsel [R. 56] is DENIED 

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 57 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 155
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Detroit, Michigan 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 

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 September 28, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 57 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 156