Mattatall v. State

Full title: STEPHEN R. MATTATALL v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, et al

Court: United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

Date published: Jul 2, 2007

C.A. No. 07-234 ML (D.R.I. Jul. 2, 2007)

Opinion

C.A. No. 07-234 ML.

July 2, 2007

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JACOB HAGOPIAN, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Stephen R. Mattatall, pro se, is currently before the Court on a motion to appoint counsel to represent him in the instant civil action.

In the appropriate case, the Court may request that an attorney represent a plaintiff in a civil action. However, there is no absolute constitutional right to a "free lawyer" in a civil case.DesRosier v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1^st Cir. 1991). Absent exceptional circumstances, the Court can not appoint counsel in a civil matter. Id. At 23. Exceptional circumstances can include, inter alia, the merits of the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant's ability to represent himself. Id.

Here, I have reviewed the plaintiff's complaint and the motions that he has filed in this case. The issues presented in the complaint are not so complex that the plaintiff is unable to represent himself. Moreover, plaintiff's filings demonstrate that he is able to present the facts and the issues himself. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.