Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bennett v. Kandulski

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 8, 2015

DAVID TODD BENNET, SR., Plaintiff
v.
ADAM KANDULSKI, M.D., ET AL., Defendants.

Paul D. Borman 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 [Dock. #19].

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. Defendants’ motion for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) [Dock. #14] is currently pending. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s request for counsel is premature.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel [Dock. #19] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.