Babcock v. Carlotto et al
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order: Plaintiffs Motion for Stay 19 is DENIED as moot. laintiffs Motion for the Appointment of Counsel 20 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Fairview Hospital, Christopher Clark, MD, and Adrian Elliot, MD 16 , and Defendant, Adam J. Carlotto's, Motion to Dismiss 17 is due October 17, 2016.(MacDonald, Gail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
RYAN P. BABCOCK,
ADAM J. CARLOTTO, et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10951-IT
September 15, 2016
Before the court is Plaintiff Ryan P. Babcock’s (“Plaintiff”) second Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel [#20] and his Motion for Stay [#19] pending resolution of his motion to
appoint counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for the Appointment of Counsel
[#20] is DENIED without prejudice, and the Motion for Stay [#19] is DENIED as moot.
A court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Because a civil party lacks a constitutional right to free counsel, however,
there is no mandate that a court request pro bono counsel. See DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d
15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). In determining whether to request counsel, the court considers whether the
requesting party is indigent and whether exceptional circumstances exist such that the denial of
counsel will result in fundamental unfairness impinging upon the party’s due process rights. See
The court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Order [#5].
Accordingly, the court focuses on whether the case gives rise to exceptional circumstances
sufficient to warrant a request for pro bono counsel. In assessing whether exceptional
circumstances exist, the court examines the total situation, including the merits of the case, the
complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant’s ability to represent himself. See DesRosiers,
949 F.2d at 24.
Plaintiff does not identify any exceptional circumstance warranting a request for pro bono
counsel, and he has failed to offer any statement about the merits of the case. See Mot. for the
Appointment of Counsel [#3]. Moreover, the court’s independent review of Plaintiff’s Complaint
[#1] indicates that the relevant facts and law are relatively straightforward. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel [#20] is DENIED without prejudice to
Plaintiff raising the motion again should later case developments indicate the existence of
exceptional circumstances warranting a request for pro bono counsel.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay [#19] is DENIED as moot. In view of Plaintiff’s pro se
prisoner status, his time to file any opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Fairview
Hospital, Christopher Clark, MD, and Adrian Elliot, MD [#16] and Defendant, Adam J.
Carlotto's, Motion to Dismiss [#17] is continued to October 17, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 15, 2016
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?