1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOEY D. OLIVER, Case No. 08-13951

 

Plaintiff, Avern Cohn

 United States District Judge

vs.

Michael Hluchaniuk

DOUG VASBINDER, et al., United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel. (Dkt. 3). Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the custody of the Michigan

Department of Corrections at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, brings

this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violations of his rights under the

United States Constitution. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his

constitutional and statutory rights and seeks money damages an injunctive relief. 

Id. On November 20, 2008, this case was referred to the undersigned for all

pretrial purposes by District Judge Avern Cohn. (Dkt. 6).

In support of his request for counsel, plaintiff states that he is unable to

afford counsel; the issues in this case are complex; and that he has limited
2

knowledge of federal law. (Dkt. 3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a federal court

may request an attorney to represent an indigent plaintiff. Reneer v. Sewell, 975

F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1992). Except in rare circumstances, it is the practice of this

Court to consider the appointment of counsel in prisoner civil rights cases only

where exceptional circumstances exist, or in certain cases only after a motion to

dismiss or for summary judgment has been decided. In order to make the

determination whether there are exceptional circumstances to appoint counsel, the

Court considers the type of case involved, plaintiff’s ability to represent himself, as

well as the complexity of the case, and also whether the claims being presented are

frivolous or have a small likelihood of success. Reneer, 975 F.2d at 261; see also,

Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1995).

It appears that, from reading the complaint, plaintiff has an adequate

understanding of the issues and matters involved in this case, and is able to

articulate the claims and arguments in a reasonable fashion. It also appears that the

issues raised in his complaint are straightforward and understandable and not of an

unduly complex nature. Should dispositive motion(s) be decided in plaintiff’s

favor, plaintiff may re-file the motion for the appointment of counsel.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but are

required to file any objections within 10 days of service as provided for in 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(d)(2). A party may not assign as error any

defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). 

Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party

objects and state the basis of the objection. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2),

objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Date: November 24, 2008 s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 24, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing

paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send electronic

notification to the following: not applicable, and I certify that I have mailed by

United States Postal Service the paper to the following non-ECF participant: Joey

D. Oliver, ID# 210352, G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

3500 N. Elm Road, Jackson, MI 49201.

s/James P. Peltier 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk

U.S. District Court

600 Church Street

Flint, MI 48502

(810) 341-7850

pete_peltier@mied.uscourts.gov