United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
William
Burns, a pro se plaintiff presently in the custody
of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”), claims that Defendants, employees of
the MDOC, prohibited him from receiving proofs of books he
has authored, in violation of his civil rights. The case is
now before the Court on Plaintiff William Burns's timely
objections to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford's
Order denying without prejudice his motion to appoint
counsel. ECF Nos. 18, 21. For reasons described below,
Plaintiff's objections will be overruled, and the
Magistrate Judge's Order affirmed.
DISCUSSION
Rule
72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that,
“[w]hen a pretrial matter not dispositive of a
party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate
judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly
conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue
a written order stating the decision.” If a party for
any reason objects to the magistrate judge's order, he or
she “may serve and file objections to the order within
14 days after being served with a copy.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(a). The district judge will then “consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Id.
The
non-dispositive Order Plaintiff has objected to is Magistrate
Judge Stafford's denial, without prejudice, of his motion
to appoint counsel. See ECF No. 18 (Oct. 15, 2018
Order). In denying Plaintiff's motion, the Magistrate
Judge reasoned that courts generally do not appoint counsel
in a civil case absent a showing of “exceptional
circumstances.” ECF No. 18 PageID.162; see Lavado
v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 6015 (6th Cir. 1993). And
Plaintiff, according to Magistrate Judge Stafford, at least
at this juncture has not established exceptional
circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. ECF No. 18
PageID.162.
Plaintiff
timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order
denying appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 21
(received by Clerk's Office on October 30, 2018);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) (explaining that when service is made by
mail, an additional three days will be added to the period of
time in which a party must act). In Plaintiff's
objections, he refers the Court to specific pages referenced
in an amended motion for appointment of counsel that was
docketed after Magistrate Judge Stafford issued the
Order denying his original motion for appointment of counsel.
ECF No. 21 PageID.188 (Pl.'s Objections) (referencing ECF
No. 19). Because Magistrate Judge Stafford issued her Order
denying the motion to appoint counsel before Plaintiff's
amended motion to appoint counsel was filed, any arguments
presented in the amended motion were never presented to the
Magistrate Judge. Under this district's jurisprudence,
“[a] magistrate judge's decision should not be
disturbed on the basis of arguments not presented to the
magistrate judge.” Exide Tech. v. Kmart Corp.,
No. 07-CV-11269, 2008 WL 2511094, *1 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 23,
2008) (citing Whittum v. Saginaw Cty., No.
02-10313-BC, 2005 WL 3271810, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 22,
2005)).
Additionally,
the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's amended motion for
appointment of counsel and finds that appointment of counsel
is not warranted at this time. There is no constitutional
right to counsel in civil proceedings and the Sixth Circuit
instructs that appointment of counsel in such a proceeding
“is justified only in exceptional circumstances.”
Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir.
2003); Bennett v. Smith, 110 Fed.Appx. 633, 635 (6th
Cir. 2004). Determining whether a pro se plaintiff
has demonstrated “exceptional circumstances”
involves “consideration of the complexity of the
factual and legal issues involved and an examination of the
type of case and the abilities of the plaintiff to represent
himself.” Lince v. Youngert, 136 Fed.Appx.
779, 782 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted)
(quoting Lavado, 992 F.2d at 604- 05). Applying
these factors, the Court finds Plaintiff has not described
circumstances that would justify appointing counsel.
Plaintiff's claims are straightforward and involve
factual and legal allegations that are comparatively narrow
in scope-denial of his civil rights in connection with MDOC
employees' decision that Plaintiff would not be given
proofs of books that were mailed to him because they posed
“a threat to the good order of the facility.” ECF
No. 1 PageID.5. Further, Plaintiff has demonstrated skill in
clearly and comprehensively explaining the factual and legal
bases for his claims. The Court concludes he will be able to
adequately litigate his claims without the assistance of
counsel.
CONCLUSION
For
these reasons, Plaintiff William Burns's motion (ECF No.
21), construed as objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Order filed in accordance with Rule 72(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, is DENIED and his
objections are OVERRULED. ...