Banks v. Hall et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 46 Motion to Appoint Counsel. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. (lt)

Banks v. Hall et al

Doc. 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Banks v. Mark Hall, et al. ORDER Robert Banks, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims of excessive force and failure to intervene against the use of excessive force against New Hampshire State Troopers Mark Hall, Robert Lima, Francesco Campo, Michael Cedrone, Gerard Ditolla, and Chad Lavoie. Banks moves to have Civil No. 09-cv-326-JD

the court appoint counsel to represent him in this case. There is no constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil case. Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36, 42 (1st Cir. 2000); Courts are

DesRosier v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).

permitted to appoint counsel in civil cases, but appointed counsel must provide pro bono representation. 1915(e)(1). 28 U.S.C. §

A court's decision not to appoint counsel is

discretionary and will be reversed "only if exceptional circumstances were present such that a denial of counsel was likely to result in fundamental unfairness impinging on

Dockets.Justia.com

plaintiffs' due process rights."

King v. Greenblatt, 149 F.3d 9,

14 (1st Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Banks requests appointment of counsel because, he represents, he has limited education, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, difficulty with spelling, and difficulty with reading skills. counsel were denied. His previous two motions for appointment of Despite Banks's representations about his

limitations, his motions demonstrate that he has a good understanding of his case. While his spelling and syntax may not

be perfect, he has been able to communicate effectively with opposing counsel and the court. Banks raises two related claims in this case. He contends

that Troopers Hall, Lima, Campo, Cedrone, Ditolla, and Lavoie used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment in the course of apprehending and arresting him. He also contends that

the troopers violated the Fourth Amendment in failing to intervene to call off the K-9 dog who was biting his leg and to protect him from an ongoing assault by the troopers. Although proceeding pro se presents certain challenges, Banks's claims are relatively straightforward, and the court believes that Banks is able to represent himself effectively. Therefore exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case to support appointment of counsel. 2

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (document no. 46) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge October 12, 2010 cc: Robert Banks, pro se Kevin H. O'Neill, Esquire John C. Vinson, Esquire

3