UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MOHAMMAD K. ALI, 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-12771 

v. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 _________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s separate Application For

Appointment of Counsel dated July 14, 2009 (Docket #2). The decision to appoint counsel

for an indigent litigant is within the discretion of the district court. LaBeau v. Dakota, 815

F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (W.D. Mich. 1993) (citing Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Dept., 763

F.2d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1036 (1985)). Appointment of counsel

is not a constitutional right. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). This

discretion rests upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including the

plaintiff's finances, his efforts to obtain counsel, and most importantly, whether the plaintiff's

case appears to be meritorious. Henry at 760. 

The Social Security Act permits practicing attorneys to collect a contingent fee for

representing disability claimants before the Social Security Administration from past due

benefits that result from successful claims. Consequently, disability claimants pay no fee

at all unless they win their case. 42 U.S.C. §§ 406(a)(2)(A) and 1383(d)(2)(A). In his

application for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he attempted and

2:09-cv-12771-DML-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 08/05/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 10
failed to secure legal representation under this fee arrangement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Application for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

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

required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and E.D.Mich.LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes

a waiver of any further right of appeal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Filing of objections that raise

some issues but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a

party might have to this Order. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1), a copy of any

objection is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall address specifically, and in the

same order raised, each issue contained within the objections.

SO ORDERED.

s/Donald A. Scheer 

DONALD A. SCHEER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: August 5, 2009

______________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on August 5, 2009 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with

the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants on August 5, 2009: Mohammad K. Ali.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217

2:09-cv-12771-DML-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 08/05/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 11