Stribling v. Washington, 5:20-cv-12990

Plaintiff Darren Stribling, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed suit on October 30, 2020; matter referred to the magistrate judge for pretrial matters.
Defendants DeAngelo and Washington moved for leave to take Stribling’s deposition and to depose two prisoner-witnesses; Stribling did not oppose.
The magistrate judge granted the deposition motions, directing the Michigan Department of Corrections to produce Stribling and the two prisoner-witnesses; depositions may be in-person, by telephone, or by videoconference and must be scheduled by agreement with the facility.
Stribling filed his fourth motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, arguing indigence, inability to prepay, difficulty deposing defendants while incarcerated, and case complexity.
The court denied appointment of counsel without prejudice, applying the discretionary, ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ standard and finding the case not sufficiently complex and that the usual discovery tools are available to Stribling.
Stribling’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as unnecessary/duplicative because pauper status had already been granted; the denial of counsel reasoning was reiterated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants may depose incarcerated plaintiff and prisoner-witnesses	(no opposition) defendants should be allowed to take depositions	Leave complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2); deposition requested	Granted; MDOC ordered to produce witnesses; depositions may be in-person/phone/video and scheduled by parties/facility
Whether to appoint pro bono counsel for Stribling	Indigent; cannot afford counsel or prepay; incarcerated status prevents effective discovery and trial preparation; case is complex	Appointment of counsel is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances; none shown here	Denied without prejudice; may refile if circumstances change
Whether inherent difficulties of prisoner litigation justify appointment of counsel	Incarceration creates unique discovery burdens that require counsel assistance	Such difficulties are common to prisoner cases and do not by themselves justify counsel; plaintiff has access to discovery tools	Court: difficulties do not amount to exceptional circumstances; denial affirmed
Whether to grant motion to proceed in forma pauperis (again)	Requests relief tied to inability to prepay and need for counsel	Plaintiff already has pauper status; motion appears to seek counsel	Denied as duplicative/unnecessary (pauper status previously granted)

Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1992) (appointment of counsel in civil cases is discretionary; consider exceptional circumstances)
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in most civil cases)
Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601 (6th Cir. 1993) (appointment of counsel in prisoner civil-rights cases is a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances)
Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. 1985) (factors for appointing counsel include complexity, plaintiff’s ability, and likelihood of success)