Couture v. Blair et al

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 1/6/2015. (esb)

U.S. G!ST

D!STRICI

f!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
2015 J/Ji -6 PM 3: 09
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

DARREN COUTURE,
Plaintiff,

v.
SUE BLAIR, D. GEORGE,
P. BOUCHER, P. OZAROWSKI,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)

)

Case No.5: 14-cv-220

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(Doc. 17)
Plaintiff Darren Couture ("Me Couture"), proceeding pro se, brings this action
against Defendants Sue Blair, Director of the Vermont Parole Board, and D. George, P.
Boucher, and P. Ozarowski, Vermont Parole Board Hearing Officers. Mr. Couture brings
his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the court is Mr. Couture's
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 17). For the reasons detailed below, Mr. Couture's
motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
In support of his motion, Mr. Couture alleges that his imprisonment and limited
access to legal research material impairs his ability to litigate the complex issues in this
case, and he suffers from a mental illness that limits his ability to understand court
procedure. He further alleges that any trial in the case would involve conflicting
testimony that would require cross-examination of witnesses and enhanced trial
preparation.
Mr. Courture's case is a civil mater. In civil cases "[a] party has no
constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel ...." Leftridge v. Conn.

State Trooper Officer # 1283,640 F.3d 62,68 (2d Cir. 2011); ~ee also United States v.
Coven, 662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir. 1981). A party granted in forma pauperis status, such
as Mr. Couture, may move the court for the appointment of an attorney if unable to afford
one on his or her own. See 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(1). The court may ask an attorney to
represent an individual who cannot afford an attorney, pursuant to § 1915(e)( 1), however
Congress has not appropriated funds to pay an attorney who accepts an appointment.

Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D. Me. 2007).
A court is granted n[b]road discretion" in deciding whether to request that an
attorney represent a litigant pro bono, and the Second Circuit requires the court to
consider several factors when making the determination. See Hodge v. Police Officers,
802 F.2d 58,60-61 (2d Cir. 1986). As a threshold requirement, the court must determine
whether the indigent's claim "is likely one of substance." Carmona v.

u.s. Bureau of

Prisons, 243 F.3d 629,632 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61). "[E]ven
though a claim may not be characterized as frivolous, counsel should not be appointed in
a case where the merits of the ... claim are thin and [the plaintiffs] chances of prevailing
are therefore poor." Id. (denying counsel where petitioner's appeal was not frivolous but
nevertheless appeared to have little merit). Once satisfied as to the substance of a
plaintiffs claims, "[a] court should then consider the indigent's ability to investigate the
crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination
will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent's ability to present the
case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason ... why appointment of
counsel would be more likely to lead to a just detennination." Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62.

In the present case, the determination of whether to appoint counsel for Mr.
Couture is premature. Although Mr. Couture's claims ultimately may have some
substance, the court need not reach this issue at this time. Responding to Defendants'
pending motion to dismiss does not require the investigation of facts, cross-examination
of witnesses, or trial preparation. Despite his challenges, Mr. Couture has demonstrated
his ability to file pleadings with the court that state his position and cite relevant law.
Accordingly, Mr. Couture's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 17) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mr. Couture may file a new motion with the court in the
future in the event of changed circumstances unforeseen here.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this

,,6 day of January, 2015.

Geoffrey W. Crawford, District Judge
United States District Court