Kargbo v. Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, Superintendent

Filing 58

ORDER granting 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel, conditioned on the identification of suitable, available counsel willing to represent Kargbo pro bono by 11/8/12. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Abu B. Kargbo
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-130-SM

James O’Mara et al.

O R D E R
Before the court is pro se plaintiff Abu B. Kargbo’s motion
for appointment of counsel (doc. no. 50).

Defendants have

objected (doc. no. 51).
This court denied without prejudice Kargbo’s prior motion
to appoint counsel.

See Order (doc. no. 10).

As noted in that

order, the court has discretion to deny an appointment in a
civil case, unless the indigent litigant demonstrates that there
are exceptional circumstances, such that fundamental unfairness,
impinging upon the right to due process, is likely to result if
counsel is not appointed.
23 (1st Cir. 1991).

See DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15,

In denying the prior motion, this court

found that counsel’s appointment was not required, in part
because Kargbo had demonstrated an ability to state actionable
claims and identify witnesses, and no evidentiary hearings had
been scheduled.

Since that time, deadlines for discovery,

expert disclosures, dispositive motions, and a May 2013 trial
date have been set in this case, see Order (doc. no. 44), and
the record shows that counsel for defendants and plaintiff have
had discovery issues and communication difficulties.

See, e.g.,

Defs.’s Response (doc. no. 56); Plf.’s Statement (doc. no. 52).
At this time, the court finds that the case-specific
factors discussed above warrant this court’s exercise of its
authority to appoint counsel for Kargbo.

Therefore, the court

grants the motion to appoint counsel (doc. no. 50), on the
condition that suitable counsel is available and willing to
accept the appointment on a pro bono basis.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1) (court may request that counsel represent indigent
plaintiff); Ruffin v. Brann, No. CV-09-87-B-W, 2010 WL 500827,
*1 (D. Me. Feb. 8, 2010) (no funds are generally available to
pay counsel’s fees or costs in such circumstances).
The clerk’s office shall contact counsel, selected from the
list of attorneys registered to file documents electronically in
this court, and request that counsel represent Kargbo pro bono
in this matter.

Counsel shall be notified that she or he may

decline the appointment, and that no funds are available to pay
counsel’s fees and costs.

Upon request of counsel, the clerk’s

office shall forward to counsel a copy of the pleadings and

2

other documents in this case.

Counsel, upon request, may have

twenty-one days to review the documents and to communicate with
Kargbo before making a decision as to whether to accept the pro
bono appointment.
If the court is unable to secure counsel willing to
represent Kargbo pro bono in this matter by November 8, 2012,
the clerk’s office will promptly notify Kargbo.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for appointment of
counsel (doc. no. 28) is GRANTED, conditioned on the
identification of suitable, available counsel willing to
represent Kargbo pro bono by November 8, 2012.

The court shall

notify Kargbo by November 8, 2012, regarding whether it has
secured such representation for him.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
October 11, 2012
cc:

Abu B. Kargbo, pro se
John Curran, Esq.

LBM:nmd

3