Hanson v. Rockingham County Department of Corrections, Superintendent
ORDER denying without prejudice 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Civil No. 11-cv-534-PB
Stephen Church, Superintendent
Rockingham County Department of
O R D E R
Before the court is Michael Hanson’s motion for courtappointed counsel (doc. no. 20).
Hanson states that he is
unable to afford counsel, and that although he has limited
access to legal materials, he is “wholly unprepared” to pursue
this action pro se.
Hanson asserts that he has been unable to
find an attorney to consult with him about possible
There is no absolute constitutional right to free legal
representation in a civil case.
F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1998).
See King v. Greenblatt, 149
Rather, appointment of counsel in a
civil case is left to the discretion of the court.
U.S.C. § 1915(d).
An appointment of counsel would be warranted
in a case where the indigent litigant can show that
“’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, 149 F.3d at 14
(quoting DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991)).
In the case at hand, Hanson has failed to establish the
existence of such exceptional circumstances.
assertions to the contrary, he has thus far been able to present
his claims coherently in this court and respond to the court’s
There is no reason at this time to
believe that Hanson will be unable to adequately represent
himself in this matter.
Accordingly, Hanson’s motion for
appointment of counsel (doc. no. 20) is DENIED without prejudice
to Hanson renewing his request should circumstances warrant.
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: January 17, 2012
Michael Hanson, pro se
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?