UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM COWAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRENT MILLER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-12428 

District Judge Gershwin A. Drain 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DE 31) 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff William 

Cowan’s motion for appointment of counsel. (DE 31.) For the reasons that follow, 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this 

lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants, Trent Miller, Jeffery 

Woods, and the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), violated his 

rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by refusing to serve 

him a Ramadan meal, causing him to experience life-threatening hypoglycemia. 

(DE 1 and 2.) On April 27, 2016, I issued a Report and Recommendation to deny 

Defendant Miller and Defendant Woods’ motion for summary judgment, to which 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 173
2

those Defendants objected on May 10, 2016. (DE 23 and 26.) Currently pending 

before the Court is MDOC’s motion to dismiss, which has not been fully briefed. 

(DE 30.) 

 Plaintiff filed this motion for appointment of counsel on May 11, 2016. (DE 

31.) In his motion, he asks the Court to appoint an attorney in this civil matter 

because he is indigent, has limited knowledge of the law, and, as an inmate, does 

not have sufficient access to the law library. 

II. ANALYSIS 

As a preliminary matter, although Plaintiff styles his motion as one for 

appointment of counsel, the Court does not have the authority to appoint a private 

attorney for Plaintiff in this civil matter. Proceedings in forma pauperis are 

governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which provides that “[t]he court may request an 

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1) (emphasis added). However, even if the circumstances of Plaintiff’s 

case convinced the Court to engage in such a search, “[t]here is no right to 

recruitment of counsel in federal civil litigation, but a district court has discretion 

to recruit counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 

F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added); see also Olson v. Morgan, 750 

F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Congress hasn’t provided lawyers for indigent 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 174
3

prisoners; instead it gave district courts discretion to ask lawyers to volunteer their 

services in some cases.”). 

 The Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption that “an indigent 

litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be 

deprived of his physical liberty.” Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 26-

27 (1981). With respect to prisoner civil rights cases in particular, the Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that “there is no right to counsel. . . . The 

appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is justified only by exceptional 

circumstances.” Bennett v. Smith, 110 F. App’x 633, 635 (6th Cir. 2004). 1

 

Accordingly, although the Court has the statutory authority to request counsel for 

pro se plaintiffs in civil cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the exercise of this 

authority is limited to exceptional situations. 

 In evaluating a matter for “exceptional circumstances,” a court should 

consider: (1) the probable merit of the claims, (2) the nature of the case, (3) the 

complexity of the legal and factual issues raised, and (4) the ability of the litigant 

to represent him or herself. Lince v. Youngert, 136 F. App’x 779, 782 (6th Cir. 

2005); Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993); Lanier v. 

Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003). 

                                                            

1

 As noted above, although some of the case law colloquially discusses the Court’s 

“appointment” of counsel in prisoner rights cases, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 the 

Court may only request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff. 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 175
4

 Plaintiff’s brief in support of his motion makes several compelling points. 

Applying the foregoing authority, however, Plaintiff has not described any 

circumstances to justify a request for appointment of counsel at this point. For 

example, he notes that this case involves a medical issue, hypoglycemia, which 

may require expert testimony which tends to favor the appointment of counsel. 

However, to this point no one has contested Plaintiff’s hypoglycemia or the fact 

that he suffered a medical emergency on July 2, 2014. Furthermore, this case is 

still at the very beginning of motion practice and expert testimony will not be 

necessary, if at all, until the case proceeds closer to trial. 

 Plaintiff also indicates that appointment of counsel is necessary because he 

is unable to conduct a thorough investigation of witnesses because he has been 

transferred to another institution. Again, such an investigation is premature. The 

motion filed by Defendants Miller and Woods dealt with Plaintiff’s alleged failure 

to exhaust his administrative remedies, and I recommended that the motion be 

denied. The pending motion to dismiss filed by the MDOC concerns issues of 

Eleventh Amendment immunity. An investigation of witnesses is not necessary at 

this point. 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 176
5

 Plaintiff contends that the expertise of an attorney would be helpful to 

litigate his case, but that he has not been able to find an attorney on his own.2

 

Such factors would apply to nearly every pro se prisoner proceeding in forma 

pauperis, and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. Further, the claims 

in Plaintiff’s complaint do not involve complex issues. Moreover, Plaintiff has on 

several occasions illustrated his ability to articulate his claims and adequately 

communicate his requests to the Court in a reasonably clear and well-organized 

manner. Plaintiff’s instant motion is a testament to this: it is well organized, cites 

to relevant case law, and contains helpful subject headings. Within the past three 

weeks, he has successfully convinced the Court to issue a Report and 

Recommendation denying a motion for summary judgment. (DE 23.) Finally, as 

this is a civil case in which Plaintiff is seeking only monetary damages,3

 there is 

                                                            

2

 Plaintiff’s instant motion, however, notes that it was prepared by Mark A. 

Boussom, Paralegal. 

3

 Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in his complaint. However, he was 

transferred from the Chippewa Correctional Facility, where the alleged events 

occurred, to the Alger Correctional facility in February 2016. (DE 31 at ¶ 2, DE 

20.) He makes no claim that he is being denied Ramadan meals at the Alger 

Correctional Facility as a result of his alleged denial at Chippewa. Accordingly, 

his claims for injunctive relief are moot. See Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 295-

96 (6th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a prison transfer moots an inmate’s claim 

where the inmate does not face the potential for future harm following the 

transfer). 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 177
6

no danger that Plaintiff will be deprived of his physical liberty over and above his 

current sentence if he loses this case. 

 Accordingly, at this time, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (DE 31.) Plaintiff may petition the Court for the 

recruitment of pro bono counsel if this case survives dispositive motion practice, 

proceeds to trial, or if other circumstances demonstrate such a need in the future. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 12, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing documents was sent to parties of 

record on May 12, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 178