Podkulski v. Doe et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying without prejudice 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Steve Podkulski
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-102-JL

Jane Doe, et al.
O R D E R
Before the court is Steve Podkulski’s motion for courtappointed counsel (doc. no. 9).

Podkulski states that he is

unable to afford counsel, and that his limited legal “know how”
will hinder his ability to litigate this matter if counsel is
not appointed to represent him.

Further, Podkulski states that

he is living in Illinois and does not have the same access to
New Hampshire law books that he would were he still in a New
Hampshire jail.
There is no absolute constitutional right to free legal
representation in a civil case.
14, 15 (1st Cir. 1988).

See Bemis v. Kelley, 857 F.2d

Rather, appointment of counsel in a

civil case is left to the discretion of the court.
U.S.C. § 1915(d).

See 28

An appointment of counsel would be warranted

in a case where the indigent litigant can show that there are
“exceptional circumstances” such that, without counsel, the
litigant would most likely be unable to obtain due process of
law.

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

Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
In the case at hand, Podkulski has failed to establish the
existence of such exceptional circumstances.

There is no reason

at this time to believe that Podkulski will be unable to
adequately represent himself in this matter.

Accordingly,

Podkulski’s motion for appointment of counsel (doc. no. 9) is
DENIED without prejudice to Podkulski renewing his request
should circumstances warrant.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: October 31, 2011
cc:

Steve Podkulski, pro se

LBM:jba