STILE v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF et al

Filing 41

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 35 Motion to Supplement Complaint. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES STILE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00406-JAW

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration for Stay of
Proceedings and Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 25), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement
Complaint (ECF No. 35).

As explained below, after consideration of the parties’ written

arguments, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration, and grants the motion to supplement.
A.

Motion for Reconsideration of Stay of Proceedings and Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 25)
Through his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its denial of

Plaintiff’s request for a stay or an appointment of counsel. Plaintiff maintains that conditions of
confinement imposed at the Maine State Prison have prevented him from adequately prosecuting
this matter. Simply stated, Plaintiff has failed to present any persuasive evidence or argument to
cause the Court to reconsider its decision denying his request for a stay.
As for the appointment of counsel, this is not a criminal case such that counsel might be
appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks the

appointment of counsel based on his former status as a criminal defendant or on his current status
as an inmate, Plaintiff is not entitled to counsel under section 3006A.

In addition, “[t]here is no absolute constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil case.”
DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). The in forma pauperis statute provides that
the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1). An appointment of counsel under the statute is discretionary, but generally is limited
to “exceptional circumstances.” DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 23. “[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. For example, the presence of “readily mastered
facts and straightforward law” would suggest that a request for counsel “should be denied in a civil
case.” Id. Denial of an indigent plaintiff’s request for counsel is error only if the denial “was
likely to result in fundamental unfairness impinging on his due process rights.” Id. at 23.
In this case, the law and facts relevant to Plaintiff’s case are sufficiently straightforward
and thus do not present “exceptional circumstances” that would warrant the appointment of
counsel.

Indeed, Plaintiff has consistently demonstrated that he has the ability to pursue civil

litigation on his own behalf.
B.

Motion to Supplement Complaint (ECF No. 35)
Through his motion to supplement complaint, Plaintiff seeks an order that will permit him

to supply the correct full names of certain defendants when the names are obtained through
discovery and to assert new factual allegations, which are set forth in the motion as paragraphs
numbered 42 through 48. Defendants do not object to the motion (see ECF No. 39). Accordingly,
the Court grants the motion as follows: Plaintiff’s complaint is amended to include paragraphs
numbered 42 through 48 in the motion. Plaintiff is not required to file a separate amended
complaint. Defendants shall file their responses to the amended complaint on or before June 15,
2015. In their responses to the amended complaint, Defendants can incorporate their prior answers

2

to Plaintiff’s complaint, and respond separately to paragraphs 42 through 48. In addition, on or
before July 24, 2015 (i.e., 14 days after the close of discovery), Plaintiff may amend his complaint
to provide the correct full names of the Defendants who are currently parties to this action. In the
event that Plaintiff so amends his complaint, Defendants are not required to file a response to the
amended complaint. Defendants’ then existing response will be considered as Defendants’
response to the amended complaint.
C.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

for Stay of Proceedings and Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 25), and grants Plaintiff’s Motion
to Supplement Complaint (ECF No. 35).
So Ordered.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 5th day of June, 2015.

3