COUGHLIN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Filing 53

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL re 51 Motion for Reconsideration By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

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 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL
The plaintiff previously moved to have counsel appointed for him in this
civil case (ECF No. 45). I denied that motion (ECF No. 50) because he had shown
neither indigency nor exceptional circumstances, both of which are required for
counsel to be appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). He now moves for an
“appeal” of that denial, arguing that he is indigent and asking for additional time
respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. 1-2 (ECF
No. 51). I construe the motion as one for reconsideration and DENY it.
I will assume that the plaintiff has shown indigency in his latest filing, but
he still has not shown “exceptional circumstances . . . such that a denial of
counsel [is] likely to result in fundamental unfairness impinging on his due
process rights.” DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). Both
indigency and exceptional circumstances are required to appoint counsel in a
civil case. Considering “the total situation,” id. at 24, I find that the facts and
law here are not complex and do not warrant appointing counsel.

I also DENY the plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to the
defendant’s motion to dismiss. I already generously extended the time for that.
Order on Pending Motions (ECF No. 50). “[P]ro se status does not insulate a
party from complying with procedural and substantive law.”

Ahmed v.

Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2