Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-12334-IT
07-11-2014
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. SPENCER PHARMACEUTICAL INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
TALWANI, D.J.
A court "may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." There is no mandate, however, that a court do so, because a civil party lacks a constitutional right to free counsel. In determining whether to request counsel, the court considers whether the requesting party is indigent and whether exceptional circumstances exist such that the denial of counsel will result in fundamental unfairness impinging upon the party's due process rights. To determine whether there are exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel, a court must examine the total situation, focusing on the merits of the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant's ability to represent himself. Moreover, the party seeking appointment of counsel must be an individual and not a corporation.
See DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).
See id.
See id. at 24.
See, e.g., FDM Mfg. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 855 F.2d 213 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a corporation is not a "person" within the meaning of the in forma pauperis statute).
Here, Defendant Jean-Francois Amyot appears to be seeking appointment of counsel both on his own behalf and on behalf of corporate Defendants IAB Media Inc. ("IAB Media") and Hilbroy Advisory Inc. ("Hilbroy"). To the extent that Amyot purports to represent IAB Media and Hilbroy, he shows flagrant disregard for this court's previous orders, both written and verbal, that made clear that corporations must be represented by licensed counsel.
See Mot. Requesting Appointment Counsel, 1 [#85] ("I, Jean-Francois Amyot, on behalf of myself as well as defendants, Hilbroy Advisory and IAB Media do hereby swear that we are unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or give security therefore, that we believe we are entitled to redress, and that we are unable to litigate this case on our own behalf [sic] . . . ." (emphases added)).
See Order ¶ 2 [#79]; Order, 2, 3 [#83].
See, e.g., In re Las Colinas Dev. Corp. v. Walter E. Heller & Co. of P.R., 585 F.2d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1978).
To the extent that Amyot seeks appointment of counsel for himself, he has failed to provide information, let alone the detailed information required, regarding his alleged indigence. Such proof of indigence is a threshold requirement before this court would request an attorney on behalf of a party.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 23.
Even if Amyot were able to prove his indigence, however, he has made no showing of "exceptional circumstances" entitling him to appointment of counsel. He has asserted only that he is unable to litigate this case due to its complexity but offers no statements as to the merits of the case.
DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 23.
--------
For these reasons, this court determines that this case does not present exceptional circumstances that would justify requesting pro bono counsel for Defendant Jean-Francois Amyot. Amyot's Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel [#85] is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Indira Talwani
United States District Judge