UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY DARNELL JONES,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-12063

 Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

BENNY N. NAPOLEON, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY [R. 11] AND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL [R. 12]

On June 5, 2015, plaintiff Larry Jones, a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se, filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Wayne County 

Sheriff Benny N. Napoleon and three medical providers at Wayne County 

Jail were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to 

provide him medicated eye drops to treat his glaucoma. [R. 1]. The 

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow referred the case to the undersigned to resolve 

all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Before the 

Court is Jones’s motion for discovery [R. 11] and motion to appoint counsel 

[R. 12]. For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

In his motion for discovery, Jones lists discovery requests and asks 

2:15-cv-12063-AJT-EAS Doc # 15 Filed 09/02/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 64
2

the Court to order Defendants to respond to those requests within 30 days. 

[R. 11]. This motion is improper. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

permit parties to request discovery from one another, and to only file a 

motion with the court to compel discovery if the request were not satisfied. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37. Additionally, discovery requests may not be filed

with the Court until they are used in the proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(d)(1). Pro se litigants are not exempt from the procedural rules in civil 

litigation. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Since Jones 

has not yet served his discovery requests on Defendants, and since 

Defendants have not failed to comply with a properly served discovery 

request, the Court will not entertain Jones’s motion for discovery.

Jones further requests appointed counsel because he cannot afford 

to hire one, he has limited knowledge of the law, the case involves complex 

issues, and the prison limits the hours he can access the library. [R. 12, 

PgID 53]. 

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. 

2:15-cv-12063-AJT-EAS Doc # 15 Filed 09/02/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 65
3

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 Jones does not 

show exceptional circumstances that merit the appointment of counsel at 

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

straightforward, and the legal issues raised in his Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claim are not overly complex. Further, Jones’s

blanket assertions regarding his limited knowledge of the law, inability to 

afford counsel, and limited access to the prison library do not constitute 

exceptional circumstances justifying 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.

Jones’s motion for discovery [R. 11] and motion to appoint counsel 

[R. 12] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS ORDERED.

2:15-cv-12063-AJT-EAS Doc # 15 Filed 09/02/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 66
4

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: September 2, 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 September 2, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-12063-AJT-EAS Doc # 15 Filed 09/02/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 67