Sullivan v. Pramstaller

Full title: EARL SULLIVAN, # 156184, Plaintiff(s), v. GEORGE PRAMSTALLER, M.D., et…

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

Date published: Mar 30, 2006

Case No. 2-05-CV-74919-DT (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 2-05-CV-74919-DT.

March 30, 2006

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; AND MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

WALLACE CAPEL JR., Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application For Appointment Of Counsel. The Plaintiff, who was an inmate at the Mound Correctional Facility at the time of the alleged claims brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiff alleges violation of his 8^th. Amendment Rights. The Plaintiff states that he was denied access to competent medical care and that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.

In support of the request for counsel, the Plaintiff states that that counsel should be appointed because of the complex nature of this matter. He also states that counsel should be appointed because he will need to conduct depositions after document discovery in this matter.

Except in rare circumstances, it is the practice of this Court to consider the appointment of counsel in prisoner civil rights cases only after a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment has been decided. While Plaintiff indicates that this action involves legal claims and medical issues that may require expert testimony, it is uncertain at this juncture exactly what Plaintiff's claims are due to the illegibility of the complaint. Further, because this matter is still in its infancy, the Court will defer making a decision on the appointment of counsel until, as stated above, either after a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment has been decided.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending a review of a dispositive motion in this matter.

The Plaintiff has also filed an "Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Request For Production Of Documents" on February 22, 2006. Having considered the motion, the Court finds that the motion is premature at this point. The Plaintiff may renew his request for production of documents after he files his more definite statement and the Defendants have filed a responsive pleading in this matter. Accordingly, the motion for production of documents is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The parties are hereby informed that any objection to this order must be filed with the district court within ten days after being served with a copy thereof, pursuant to Rule 72(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.