Chaverst v. Well Path Medical ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRANCE GLENN CHAVREST, Plaintiff, Case No. 23-11513 Honorable Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford WELL PATH MEDICAL et al., Defendants. ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 24) AND AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF NO. 22) Plaintiff Terrance Glenn Chavrest asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant medical personnel for failure to treat his ingrown toenails. ECF No. 1. After this matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings, ECF No. 16, Chavrest requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 21. The magistrate judge denied the request. ECF No. 22. Chavrest then filed an objection challenging that order, which is now before the Court. ECF No. 24. A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order on non-dispositive matters for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Chavrest’s objection does not Page 1 of 3 challenge the order as erroneous; it merely urges the Court to reconsider his request to appoint counsel. ECF No. 24. The Court, however, finds no clear error of law in the magistrate judge’s order. As the magistrate judge pointed out, “[c]ourts seldom appoint counsel in a civil case absent a showing of ‘exceptional circumstances.’” ECF No. 22., PageID.166 (quoting Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993)). To determine whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers the nature of the case, the party’s ability to represent himself, the complexity of the case, and whether the claims being presented are frivolous or have a small likelihood of success. Id. Because courts consider the party’s likelihood of success, “[a]ppointment of counsel is almost always denied prior to the exhaustion of dispositive motions.” Dixon v. Kraft, 2017 WL 11490775, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2017), objections overruled, 2017 WL 11490776 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2017). The magistrate judge determined that Chavrest’s claim, not yet tested by a dispositive motion, is straightforward and that he is competent to proceed pro se. ECF No. 22. Thus, the magistrate judge did not err when she denied Chavrest’s motion. The Court therefore overrules Chavrest’s Page 2 of 3 objection (ECF No. 24) and affirms the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 22). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Chavrest’s objection (ECF No. 24) is OVERRULED and the magistrate judge’s Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 22) is AFFIRMED. /s Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: October 23, 2023 United States District Judge Page 3 of 3