Summary
This United States District Court order denies a pro se incarcerated plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel and for a delay in responding to the defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. The court finds that the plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointed counsel and explains that discovery is generally unavailable prior to resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Additionally, the court rules that the plaintiff failed to show how the requested discovery would provide facts essential to opposing the defendants' arguments regarding legal sufficiency and administrative exhaustion. The order sets a deadline for the plaintiff to file a substantive response to the dispositive motions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915.
- Whether the plaintiff may obtain discovery and delay his response to the defendants' motion to dismiss/summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
Holdings
- The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, finding that the plaintiff had not shown the "exceptional circumstances" required for appointment.
- The court denied the motion to delay, holding that the plaintiff had not satisfied the statutory requirement to show a specific inability to present facts without discovery.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (at 678)
“IT IS ORDERED that Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 24, 28) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” (at order)
Factual background
Marcus Williams, an incarcerated person, sued four Michigan Department of Corrections officials alleging First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violations. He asserted he lacked funds, had dyslexia, and a serious medical condition, and sought appointment of counsel and discovery before responding to the defendants' motions.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a §1983 complaint alleging constitutional violations. Defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. Plaintiff subsequently moved for appointment of counsel and to delay response under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The court denied both motions.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff must file a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss or summary judgment by September 2, 2025; failure may result in a Report and Recommendation that the motion be granted.