BARRY v. CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 65 Motion to Appoint Counsel. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

PAUL MICHAEL BARRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00527-JDL

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF NO. 65)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF
No. 65.) In essence, Plaintiff maintains that the appointment of counsel is warranted because of
the nature of the claim and his physical condition.
“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). 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). The 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.
While the Court recognizes that the lack of formal legal training can present challenges to
pro se litigants, the lack of legal training alone is generally not a sufficient basis for the

appointment of counsel. As the First Circuit articulated in DesRosiers, to determine whether an
appointment of counsel is appropriate, courts must focus not only on the litigant’s ability, but also
on the merits and complexity of the case. Here, although Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim, the
Court cannot at this stage determine the relative merit of the claim. More importantly, the facts
alleged can fairly be characterized as “readily mastered” and the applicable law as “straight
forward.” DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 24. The gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim is that Defendants’
alleged failure to treat him properly when he experienced significant bleeding constitutes a
violation of his constitutional rights. The facts are not complicated, and the applicable legal
standard is well developed. Under the circumstances, the case does not present “exceptional
circumstances,” and thus the appointment of counsel is not warranted. DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at
23. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No.
65.)
CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 28th day of December, 2015.