UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSE I KETZBEAU, Case No. 5:24-cv-11006

Plaintiff, Judith E. Levy v. United States District Judge

NOKES, et al., Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 41)

I. Introduction This is a civil rights action under

. Plaintiff Jesse Ketzbeau, proceeding pro se, is a pretrial detainee being housed in the Clare County Jail. He alleges that the remaining Defendants—all Jail employees—have violated his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 41). Defendants have filed a response. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff has not filed a reply and the time permitted under Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)(B) to do so has expired. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. II. Legal Standard Although federal district courts have discretion under

(e)(1)

to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel,” there is no constitutional right to court-appointed counsel in a civil case. Lanier v. Bryant,

(6th Cir. 2003); Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr.,

(6th Cir. 1995). The decision rests in the district court’s discretion and will be overturned only if it impinges fundamental due process rights and amounts to an abuse of discretion. Reneer v. Sewell,

(6th Cir. 1992); see also Richmond v. Settles,

(6th Cir. 2011).

The appointment of counsel is only justified by exceptional circumstances. Lavado v. Keohane,

, 605–06 (6th Cir. 1993). In determining whether exceptional circumstances are present, a court must consider the “nature of the case,”

the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved, and the plaintiff’s ability to represent themselves.

; see also Shavers v. Bergh,

(6th Cir. 2013); Garrison v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr.,

, 917–18 (6th Cir. 2009). The complexity of the case and the plaintiff’s ability to handle it are

“separate and distinct considerations.” Kensu v. Rapelje, No. 12-11877,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2014). For example, the plaintiff’s prior pro se experience is relevant to their ability to manage their current cases.

III. Analysis Ketzbeau asserts indigency and the complexity of the constitutional violations

alleged as the reasons that he should be appointed counsel. As will be explained, these reasons are insufficient to demonstrate a unique or exceptional need for counsel at this time. This is because “[f]actors such as indigency, imprisonment,

and that the expertise of an attorney would help a plaintiff litigate the case ‘apply to nearly every pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances.’ ” Harrison v. Oliver, No. 2:23-CV-10655,

, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2023), aff’d,

(E.D. Mich.

Oct. 23, 2023) (quoting Juide v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:16-13806,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2017)). Further, discovery has closed in this matter, and the remaining issues regarding Ketzbeau’s claims of retaliation and

unconstitutional conditions of confinement are not unusually complex in terms of prisoner civil rights litigation. Outside of the most exceptional cases, courts generally do not appoint counsel until after motions to dismiss or for summary judgment are decided. See Griffin v.

Klee, No. 2:14-CV-14290,

, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2015); Sigers v. Bailey, No. 08-13298,

, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2009). “In keeping with this policy, this Court almost always denies motions for

appointment of counsel until after dispositive motions are decided.” Burns v. Brewer, No. CV 18-10937,

, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 10, 2019). Dispositive motions in this case are due by July 18, 2025, since this date has not yet

passed, it is unknown whether any dispositive motions will be filed. If any claims remain after dispositive motions are filed and ruled upon, then Ketzbeau may file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel. For now, his

motion for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. IV. Conclusion For these reasons, Ketzbeau’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 41) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: July 22, 2025 s/PATRICIA T. MORRIS Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge