Stephen M. Garrison v. Case Hoffman, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

STEPHEN M. GARRISON, CASE NO. 3:24 CV 1614 Plaintiff, v. JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II CASE HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants. ORDER

Currently pending before the Court in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action are pro se Plaintiff Stephen M. Garrison’s Motions for Court Appointed Counsel (Doc. 39) and Discovery (Doc. 40).

Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 39) The relevant statute provides that, for an individual proceeding in forma pauperis as Plaintiff is, “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). However, there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case and the decision to do so is left to the discretion of the district court. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993); Schultz v. Hansen, 28 F. App’x 513, 515 (6th Cir. 2002). The Sixth Circuit has characterized appointment of counsel in civil cases as “a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” Lavado, 992 F.3d at 606. In determining whether the case displays the necessary exceptional circumstances, the court “examine[s] the complexity of the factual and legal issues and the plaintiff’s ability to represent himself.” Schultz, 28 F. App’x at 515 (citation omitted).

Plaintiff cites the relevant statute and simply requests “counsel in the ongoing proceedings to properly present this case.” (Doc. 39, at 1). As stated previously (Doc. 11), upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s case does not present the exceptional circumstances to justify appointment of counsel at this stage. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Motion for Discovery (Doc. 40) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Discovery. (Doc. 40). The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion because, at this stage of the proceedings, a motion is not procedurally proper. Plaintiff must seek discovery as outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, however construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a request for production directed at Defendants, who have now been served with the request by virtue of the Court’s electronic filing system.

For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Appointed Counsel (Doc. 39) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as set forth above; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. 40) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as set forth above.

s/ James R. Knepp II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: February 18, 2026