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)

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