Logie v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority et al

Filing 7

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered denying without prejudice 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall issue summonses as to all defendants. Service must be completed within 90 days of the date of this order. Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, she may elect to have service completed by the United States Marshals Service (USMS). If the plaintiff chooses to have service completed by the USMS, she shall provide the agency with all papers for service on the defendants and a completed USM-285 form for each party to be served. The Clerk shall provide the plaintiff with forms and instructions for service. (PSSA, 4)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ROSALIND LOGIE, Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION ) AUTHORITY, et al., ) Defendants. ) Civ. Action No. 17-10949-PBS ORDER August 14, 2017 SARIS, C.D.J. 1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk shall issue summonses as to all defendants. The plaintiff is responsible for serving the summonses, complaint, and this order on the defendants in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 4.1. Service must be completed within 90 days of the date of this order. 3. Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, she may elect to have service completed by the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”). If the plaintiff chooses to have service completed by the USMS, she shall provide the agency with all papers for service on the defendants and a completed USM-285 form for each party to be served. The USMS shall complete service as directed by plaintiff with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall provide the plaintiff with forms and instructions for service. 4. The motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Although the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel,” 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), a civil plaintiff lacks a constitutional right to free counsel, see DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). The Court does not have the funds to pay attorneys to represent plaintiffs in civil cases, and it is difficult to find attorneys who will accept appointment as pro bono counsel. To qualify for this scarce resource, a party must be indigent and exceptional circumstances must exist such that the denial of counsel will result in fundamental unfairness impinging on the party’s due process rights. 949 F.2d at 23. See DesRosiers, Because the defendants have not responded to the complaint, the Court cannot determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that would justify appointment of counsel. The plaintiff may renew the motion after the defendants have responded to the complaint. SO ORDERED. /s/ Patti B. Saris PATTI B. SARIS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2   

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?