1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JERRY GILLIAM, 

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-11833 

vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JUDITH E. LEVY 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB 

WILLIAM H. ORDIWAY, JR., and 

MARVEILYN TALISIC ORDIWAY, 

Defendants. 

___________________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

FOR DEFNEDANTS [19] 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Defendants Being 

Indigent. (Docket no. 19.) This matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial 

proceedings. (Docket no. 20.) 

Plaintiff Jerry Gilliam, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants William H. 

Ordiway, Jr., and Marveilyn Talisic Ordiway, also proceeding pro se. Plaintiff now asks the 

Court to appoint counsel on behalf of Defendants, arguing that he “believe[s] it is too difficult for 

defendants to grasp the legal concepts in [this matter] and [that they] do not understand the basic 

rules of pleadings.” (Docket no. 19 at 2.) He further asserts that “it would benefit all parties and 

the Court if counsel is appointed Pro Bono” for Defendants. (Id.) 

As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Constitution of the United States does not require the 

automatic appointment of counsel for indigents in civil cases. Appointment of counsel in a civil 

proceeding is not a constitutional right and is justified only in exceptional circumstances. Lanier 

1:15-cv-11833-TLL-PTM Doc # 30 Filed 02/12/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 181
2 

v Bryant, 332 F.2d 999, 1006 (6th Cir.2003); Lavado v Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-6 (6th Cir 

1993). To determine whether exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel 

exists, courts consider the type of case and the ability of the party to represent himself. Lanier, 

332 F.2d at 1006. Most notably, Defendants have not asked that counsel be appointed on their 

behalf. But even if Defendants themselves had requested appointment of counsel, the Court notes 

that they have filed multiples motions to dismiss and a motion to transfer venue, the latter of which 

the Court has recommended granting. While Defendants’ filings to-date may require liberal 

interpretation to adjudicate properly, nothing before the Court suggests that Defendants are 

incapable of representing themselves in this matter. 

The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s concern and desire to “protect the defendants’ rights 

under the due process clause of the constitution,” but his Motion will be denied. Notably, nothing 

in this Opinion and Order is meant to suggest that Defendants (or Plaintiff) cannot seek counsel on 

their own behalf, either independently or through Motion to the Court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel for 

Defendants is DENIED without prejudice. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen (14) days from the 

date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be 

permissible under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 

Dated: February 12, 2016 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

1:15-cv-11833-TLL-PTM Doc # 30 Filed 02/12/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 182
3 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served on Plaintiff Jerry 

Gilliam and Defendants William H. Ordiway, Jr., and Marveilyn Talisic Ordiway on this date. 

Dated: February 12, 2016 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager 

1:15-cv-11833-TLL-PTM Doc # 30 Filed 02/12/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 183