Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
-
Motion | Filed: April 02, 2024 | Entered: April 03, 2024 BOYLE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
Prisoner Petition: Civil Rights (Other) | District Of Columbia
Compel
MOTION to Compel by RICHARD BOYLE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(zdp)
-
Misc | Filed: April 01, 2024 | Entered: April 03, 2024 BOYLE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
Prisoner Petition: Civil Rights (Other) | District Of Columbia
Status Report
STATUS REPORT by RICHARD BOYLE. (zdp)
-
Order | Filed: February 28, 2024 | Entered: February 28, 2024 BOYLE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
Prisoner Petition: Civil Rights (Other) | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel. A plaintiff in a civil case generally does not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. See Willis v. FBI, 274 F.3d 531, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Where, as here, a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is authorized to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it is not obliged to do so unless the party demonstrates exceptional circumstances such that the denial of counsel would result in fundamental unfairness. See Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986). "Whether exceptional circumstances exist requires an evaluation of the type and complexity of each case, and the abilities of the individual bringing it." Id.; see also LCvR 83.11(b)(3) (listing factors). Considering the LCvR 83.11(b)(3) factors and the limited pro bono resources available, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted. This case appears to be a fairly straightforward FOIA matter unlikely to require much if any discovery, and Plaintiff's motion does not persuade the Court that his challenge to the withholding of documents has particular merit. Plaintiff argues further that appointment of counsel is necessary because he is unable to obtain other counsel and is experiencing difficulty communicating with opposing counsel, and that attorney's fees may be available to appointed counsel should he prevail. But Plaintiff has not shown that "any greater interest of justice will be served by appointing counsel in this case than in any other pro se case." Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2017). Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff may not have received Defendant's most recent status report, ECF No. 29, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a courtesy copy of that report along with a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/28/2024. (lctjk1)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login