United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL
R. STEVEN WHALEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a pro se litigant in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Docket #29].
Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to assist in appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted).
It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have been denied. My recommendation to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of exhaustion is still pending. Moreover, the Court has not yet issued scheduling deadlines for additional dispositive motions. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s request for counsel is premature.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket #29] is ...