UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE JONES, 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

DAVID McCORMICK, et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:15-11694 

District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DE 24) 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Willie James 

Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel. (DE 24.) 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 claims of unlawful seizure, violation of 

due process, violation of equal protection, assault and battery, false arrest, and 

false imprisonment, stemming from events that occurred during his April 23, 2012 

arrest and continuing until October 2, 2012. (DE 1 and 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint 

was transferred to this district from the Western District of Michigan on May 12, 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 164
2

2015. Currently, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending 

before the court. (DE 20, 22, and 23.) 

 Plaintiff filed this motion for appointment of counsel on December 14, 2015. 

(DE 24.) In his motion, he asks the court to appoint an attorney in this civil matter 

because he has a limited education on the law and is indigent. 

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 

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

services in some cases.”). 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 165
3

 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). 

 Applying the foregoing authority, Plaintiff has not described any 

circumstances to justify a request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff contends 

                                                            

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-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 166
4

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. 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. For example, his 

response to the pending motion to dismiss cites to relevant case law and contains 

helpful subject headings. The court will take his well-researched response into 

account when deciding the pending motion to dismiss. Finally, as this is a civil 

case in which Plaintiff is seeking only monetary damages, there is no danger that 

Plaintiff will be deprived of his physical liberty over and above his current 

sentence if he loses this case. (DE 1 at 6.) 

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

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (DE 24.) 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: February 17, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 167
5

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

on February 17, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 168