MAYFIELD v. BURT, (E.D.Mich. 2001)

DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel filed August 15, 2001. In the motion, the plaintiff states that he lacks the funds necessary to retain counsel and the "ends of justice would best be served in this case if an attorney was appointed to represent the petitioner [sic]."

In a civil case, a plaintiff has no Sixth Amendment constitutional right to counsel. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993). "`[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege not a right.'" Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting U.S. v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)). The plaintiff has demonstrated by his filings to date that he is capable of pursuing the case on his own and no fundamental unfairness would result if the plaintiff continued to act pro se. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [dkt #4] is DENIED without prejudice.