COUGHLIN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Filing 50

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - granting 41 Motion to Substitute Party solely with regard to any state law tort claims subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA added as a party to the case) ; denying 45 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot 49 Motion to Stay. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PAUL M. COUGHLIN, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF
V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEFENDANT

CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-470-DBH

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
The defendant’s second motion to substitute (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED as
follows: The United States of America is substituted for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation as the defendant solely with regard to any state law tort claims
subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 45) is DENIED. The only
basis for appointment here would be 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), dealing with
someone unable to afford counsel. But in this case the plaintiff has not qualified
for in forma pauperis status, instead paying the filing fee. Moreover, he has told
the court that he had a lawyer who withdrew from the case after the defendant
told the lawyer that the plaintiff is not under investigation. Pl.’s Addendum #5,
at 6 (ECF No. 36); Pl’s Addendum #6, at 1 (ECF No. 42); Pl.’s Mot. to Appoint
Counsel. “There is no absolute constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil
case. Hence, to succeed on [an appeal of a denial of a request for counsel, a
party]

must

demonstrate

that

he

was

indigent

and

that

exceptional

circumstances were present such that a denial of counsel was likely to result in
fundamental unfairness impinging on his due process rights.” DesRosiers v.
Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). This plaintiff qualifies neither on the
basis of indigency nor on the exceptional circumstances standard. The facts and
the law here are not complex.
I note that the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings has been
withdrawn. What remains pending is the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but it
has not yet been fully briefed. The plaintiff has moved “to delay decision . . . until
legal counsel is appointed.” Pl.’s Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 49). But his motion for
counsel has now been denied as I describe above. I do extend the time for him
to respond to the motion to dismiss so that it runs from today. The plaintiff shall
respond to the motion no later than August 23, 2018. His motion to stay is
DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2