Palermo v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Clarification and Response to States Request for Denial of Plaintiff's Objection. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher M. Palermo
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-337-JL

William Wrenn, Commissioner,
New Hampshire Department of
Corrections, et al.
O R D E R
Christopher Palermo has filed a motion for “clarification
and response to state’s request for denyal [sic] of plaintiff’s
objection” (doc. no. 18).

The motion appears to request: (1)

court-appointed counsel; and (2) an extension of time to file an
objection to the report and recommendation (doc. no. 10) issued
February 8, 2012.

Palermo asserts, in support of these

requests, that he is incarcerated in a jail with no law library,
and he is thus unable to formulate a proper objection to the
report and recommendation without the assistance of counsel.
Extension of Time
To the extent Palermo requests an extension of time the
request is denied as moot.

Palermo has, since filing the

instant motion, filed an objection (doc. no. 22) to the report
and recommendation.

Appointment of Counsel
Palermo requests court-appointed counsel to represent him
in this matter.

In support of this request, Palermo asserts

that he is indigent, that he has no legal expertise, and that he
is incarcerated in a jail which affords him no access to a law
library.
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of
counsel in a civil case in this court.

See Maroni v. Pemi-Baker

Reg’l Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 247, 257 (1st Cir. 2003).

While the

court has the discretion to appoint counsel in a particular
case, it must do so “only if ‘exceptional circumstances were
present such that a denial of counsel was likely to result in
fundamental unfairness impinging on [plaintiff’s] due process
rights.’”

King v. Greenblatt, 149 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1998)

(quoting DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991)).
To determine if “exceptional circumstances” warrant the
appointment of counsel, “a court must examine the total
situation, focusing, inter alia, on the merits of the case, the
complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant’s ability to
represent himself.”

DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 24.

Palermo has not established exceptional circumstances
warranting the appointment of counsel in this case.

Palermo’s

indigence and lack of legal expertise are circumstances common

2

to most inmate litigants in this court.

As to Palermo’s

assertion that he has no access to a law library, since the
filing of this motion, Palermo has filed an objection to the
February 8 report and recommendation containing legal argument
and citing case law.

It appears, therefore, that Palermo has

gained access to a law library, or other resources, enabling him
to conduct legal research.

There is no reason set forth in the

motion, or otherwise apparent at this time, to believe that
Palermo will be unable to adequately represent himself in this
matter.

Accordingly, Palermo’s request for appointed counsel is

denied without prejudice to Palermo renewing his request should
circumstances warrant.
The motion for clarification (doc. no. 18) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

________________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date:
cc:

May 8, 2012

Christopher Palermo, pro se
Brian W. Buonamano, Esq.

3