`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`_____________________
`
`MICHAEL REYNOLDS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`VILLAGE OF MATTAWAN,
`GARY JACOBS, in his official and
`individual capacities, and BRANDON
`WEBER, in his official and individual
`capacities,
`
`Defendants.
`_______________________________/
`
`Case No. 4:05-CV-60
`
`Hon. Richard Alan Enslen
`
`ORDER
`
`Attorney William F. Piper has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Michael
`
`Reynolds in this section 1983 action for excessive force. The Motion for Leave is precipitated by
`
`differences between attorney and client as to trial strategy, which differences have caused in attorney
`
`Piper’s judgment a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Motion seeks immediate
`
`withdrawal and scheduling accommodations for possible future Plaintiff’s counsel.
`
`This request is reasonable and consistent with the law. See Mich. R. Prof. Cond. 1.16.
`
`However, the Court wishes to avoid Plaintiff’s pro se appearance for a variety of important reasons:
`
`allowing withdrawal without substitute counsel presents the possibility of an unrepresented party at
`
`trial proceedings; and, an unrepresented party at trial proceedings would likely lengthen trial
`
`proceedings, increase the likelihood of mistrial, and pose the real danger that the jury would decide
`
`the case not based upon the proofs, but based upon the absence of representation. These are not only
`
`possible outcomes, but, in the Court’s experience, likely consequences of permitting immediate
`
`withdrawal without obtaining substitute counsel. In saying so, the Court does not wish to discourage
`
`
`
`Case 4:05-cv-00060-RAE Doc #45 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#310
`
`Plaintiff from obtaining substitute counsel, which would be wholly accommodated, but does wish to
`
`discourage the specter of a pro se trial, which would be, in the Court’s judgment, both unfair and a
`
`gross waste of public resources. Cf. United States v. McDowell, 814 F.2d 245, 250-51 (6th Cir. 1987)
`
`(discussing comparable considerations regarding withdrawal in criminal cases); Reynolds v. Polen, 564
`
`N.W.2d 467, 469-70 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (discussing continuing right of withdrawing attorney to
`
`a quantum meriut claim for services as to future recoveries).
`
`Plaintiff is further advised that attorney Piper is, in the Court’s experience, an experienced
`
`member of the bar who is very competent to handle and try excessive force cases. Plaintiff is further
`
`advised that pro se litigants, in the Court’s experience, typically perform not just badly, but
`
`unredeemably in pro se trials. This is because they do not know the rules of evidence; they do not
`
`understand the massive amount of precedent which is applicable to constitutional and section 1983
`
`litigation; they do not understand the subtleties of jury selection, jury instruction and jury deliberation;
`
`nor do they understand how to prosecute or defend an appeal, if such becomes necessary. Quite
`
`simply, withdrawal of counsel by Plaintiff without substitute counsel is, most likely, decidedly against
`
`Plaintiff’s interests in the litigation.
`
`THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw
`
`(Dkt. No. 43) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorney Piper shall within the next 14 days read this Order
`
`VERBATIM to Plaintiff Michael Reynolds and explain it to him at length, and shall file a written
`
`affidavit so certifying with 15 days of this Order.
`
`DATED in Kalamazoo, MI:
`November 17, 2006
`
` /s/ Richard Alan Enslen
`RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN
`SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`2
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
