ASSELIN v. CHICK et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SHAWN ASSELIN,
Plaintiff
v.
MATHEW CHICK, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
) 2:13-cv-00222-DBH
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 38)
Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 38). Appointment of
counsel is not automatic in federal cases of this nature. "There is no absolute constitutional right
to a free lawyer in a civil case." Desrosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). "To
determine whether there are exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant the appointment of
counsel, a court must examine the total situation, focusing, inter alia, on the merits of the case,
the complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant's ability to represent himself." Id. at 24.
Plaintiff’s motion properly references the factors this court must consider when confronting such
a motion, but I do not find those exceptional circumstances in this case when I consider the
totality of the circumstances.
Contrary to Asselin’s motion, the case is neither legally nor factually complex, at least at
these early stages. It is a fairly typical excessive force, retaliation case brought pursuant to
Section 1983. The fact that Asselin has brought state law tort claims as well may make the case
slightly more complex, but that was his choice and he obviously knows what he is doing as the
complaint invokes this court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Additionally, the difficulties with

discovery that Asselin envisions are the sort of problems that every pro se prisoner litigant
encounters and which the court addresses regularly in the context of pro se cases.
I also must put Asselin’s request in context. This case represents his fourth involvement
in federal litigation in the last three years. The first case was a grand jury proceeding, In Re
Grand Jury, 2:11-mc-00010-JHR where counsel was appointed to represent Asselin, twice. Both
counsel filed motions to withdraw, the second attorney indicating that Asselin wished to handle
the matter himself, pro se. The second case, a Section 1983 prisoner civil rights case, 2:12-cv00036-GZS, was settled by Asselin pro se. In that case a motion for appointment of counsel was
pending and I had contacted pro bono counsel attempting to secure counsel for Asselin because
his allegations did appear to have some merit, if true. Pro bono counsel advised the court that
Asselin had told him he did not need counsel because the case had settled. The third pro se
prisoner 1983 case, 2:13-cv-00320-DBH was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff prior to
service. Given Asselin’s litigation experience and his obvious ability to navigate the system
efficiently, I do not find that an attempt to locate pro bono counsel is justified at this juncture.
Accordingly, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is hereby DENIED at this time,
subject to reconsideration should the circumstances of this case change dramatically.
CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this order shall be filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
So Ordered.
January 15, 2014
/s/Margaret J. Kravchuk
U.S. Magistrate Judge