BOUSSUM v. CAMPBELL

Case No. 16-12930.

MARK A. BOUSSUM, Plaintiff, v. SHERMAN CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.

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

Editors Note
Cause: No cause code entered
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mark A. Boussum, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

S. Campbell, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

McRoberts, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

S. Smith, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

T. Bowers, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

S. Slonski, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

M. Harpst, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

C. Bates, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

King, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Conclon, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Doyle, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros , Michigan Department of Attorney General.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA, District Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his request for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff Mark A. Boussum, a state prisoner, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants, alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel on August 8, 2016, which was denied without prejudice by Magistrate Judge Majzoub on September 23, 2016. Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2017.

As Magistrate Judge Majzoub noted in her order, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right, but is a privilege "justified only by exceptional circumstances." See Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982); Lavado v. Keohene, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). The court is mindful of the challenges inherent in litigating a case as a pro se, incarcerated plaintiff. However, a review of the complaint and application to appoint counsel does not reveal "exceptional circumstances" justifying the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. In the event that this case survives dispositive motions and proceeds to trial, the court will revisit Plaintiff's application.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his request for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases