Opinion
Civil Action 23-cv-11478-ADB
03-04-2024
JUSTICE AINOOSON, Plaintiff, v. JAMES O'GARA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Justice E. Ainooson has filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel [ECF #36]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel.
Although the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel,” 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), a civil plaintiff lacks a constitutional right to free counsel, see DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). With some narrow exceptions not factually relevant here, the Court is not allocated funds to pay attorneys to represent plaintiffs in civil cases, and it can be very difficult for the Court to find attorneys who will donate their time to represent litigants on pro bono basis.
The appointment of pro bono counsel in a non-habeas civil action is only required where a party is indigent and exceptional circumstances exist such that the denial of counsel will result in fundamental unfairness impinging on the party's due process rights. See DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 23. To determine whether appointment of counsel is required, a court must examine the total situation, focusing on the merits of the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant's ability to represent themself. See id. at 24.
Upon review of the complaint, motions to dismiss, and Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that, at this stage of the litigation, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel do not exist.
Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Plaintiff is reminded that he has until April 15, 2024 to file his opposition to the pending motions to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.