Blake v. Medeiros

Filing 26

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered denying without prejudice 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel. See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
RONALD BLAKE,
Petitioner,
v.
SEAN MEDEIROS,
Respondent.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 14-cv-11845-IT

ORDER
October 28, 2014
TALWANI, D.J.
This court treats Petitioner’s October 14, 2014 letter [#25] as a motion for reconsideration
of his motion to appoint counsel. As set forth in this court’s July 25, 2014 Order [#18], a party
to a civil proceeding generally lacks a constitutional right to free counsel.1 A court may,
however, request the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent party in exceptional
circumstances.2 In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must examine
the total situation, focusing on the merits of the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and the
litigant’s ability to represent himself.3 Petitioner requests counsel on the ground that he lacks
legal training. Lack of legal training, however, is insufficient to justify the appointment of
counsel.4 At this stage, the court is unable to determine whether the merits of the case, the

1

See DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991); Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1,
2 (1st Cir. 1986).
2

See DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 23; Cookish, 787 F.2d at 2.

3

See DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 24; Cookish, 787 F.2d at 3.

4

Lucien v. Spencer, 534 F. Supp. 2d 207, 209–10 (D. Mass. 2008) (citing DesRosiers, 949 F.2d
at 23–24; Cookish, 787 F.2d at 2–3).

complexity of the legal issues, and Petitioner’s ability to represent himself give rise to
exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration [#25] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner raising his
request after Petitioner files a memorandum in support of his petition and the Respondent files an
opposition. After this briefing, the court will be better situated to determine whether
appointment of counsel and supplemental briefing are warranted.
In light of the foregoing, this court hereby ORDERS that Petitioner shall file a
memorandum in support of his petition by November 26, 2014. The court has granted Petitioner
two extensions of time to file a memorandum in support of his petition. The court will not be
inclined to grant any further extensions absent a showing of good cause. Additionally, the court
reminds Petitioner that failure to comply with court orders may result in default or dismissal.
The court further ORDERS that Respondent shall file any memorandum in opposition to the
petition by December 18, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

Date: October 28, 2014

2