Horne v. Heyns

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedJanuary 20, 2023
Docket5:15-cv-10558
StatusUnknown

This text of Horne v. Heyns (Horne v. Heyns) 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
Horne v. Heyns, (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Tonny Horne,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-10558

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Daniel Heyns,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [28]

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff Tonny Horne filed this pro se civil rights action against Defendant Daniel Heyns pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On May 19, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff did not file a response. On December 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R & R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 18.) On January 15, 2016, the Court adopted the R & R, granted Defendant’s motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. (ECF No. 21.) On October 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 27.) On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of

counsel. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel to assist him in effectively litigating this case. The Court has discretion to determine whether counsel should be appointed in a civil case. Garrison

v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 333 F. App’x 914, 917 (6th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s case was dismissed, and the case was closed approximately seven years ago. No case or controversy remains pending

before the Court. As such, there is no basis for appointing counsel in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 20, 2023 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 20, 2023. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager

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

Related

Garrison v. Michigan Department of Corrections
333 F. App'x 914 (Sixth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Horne v. Heyns, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horne-v-heyns-mied-2023.