Hall v. Flora

E.D. Michigan

Hall v. Flora

DecidedOctober 6, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-11064

StatusUnknown

This text of Hall v. Flora (Hall v. Flora) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Flora, (E.D. Mich. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STACEY SIMEON HALL, Plaintiff, No. 19-11064 v. District Judge Robert H. Cleland Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen JASON FLORA, ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER Plaintiff, a pro se litigant currently housed at Monroe County Jail, in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel or a “special master” to investigate the circumstances surrounding his allegations of excessive force during his March 10, 2018 arrest [Docket #28]. 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. At this point, none of the dispositive motions in this case have been denied and as such, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is premature. For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a “special master” will be denied. If Plaintiff’s claims ultimately survive -1- dispositive motions, he may renew his current motion at that time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #28] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2019 s/R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on October 6, 2019 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 non- registered ECF participants October 6, 2019. s/Carolyn M. Ciesla Case Manager for the Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STACEY SIMEON HALL, Plaintiff, No. 19-11064 v. District Judge Robert H. Cleland Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen JASON FLORA, ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER Plaintiff, a pro se litigant currently housed at Monroe County Jail, in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel or a “special master” to investigate the circumstances surrounding his allegations of excessive force during his March 10, 2018 arrest [Docket #28]. 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. At this point, none of the dispositive motions in this case have been denied and as such, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is premature. For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a “special master” will be denied. If Plaintiff’s claims ultimately survive -1- dispositive motions, he may renew his current motion at that time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #28] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2019 s/R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on October 6, 2019 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 non- registered ECF participants October 6, 2019. s/Carolyn M. Ciesla Case Manager for the Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hall v. Flora, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-flora-mied-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack