Case 1:11-cv-03488-ELH Document 5 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHRISTOPHER HARVEY HARE, Plaintiff, v. NIK RICHIE, et al, Defendants. ORDER Christopher Harvey Hare, plaintiff pro se, has filed a Motion To Appoint Counsel (ECF 3). Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 1) alleges defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and various other torts. A federal district court judge’s power to appoint counsel is a discretionary one. An appointment of counsel may be appropriate when an indigent claimant presents exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 (4th Cir. 1975). The question of whether such circumstances exist in a particular case hinges on the “type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of the [litigant].” Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds. Where a colorable claim exists but the litigant has no capacity to present it, counsel should be appointed. Id. Here, plaintiff states in his demand that he holds a Master of Business Adminstration degree (“MBA”). He has also demonstrated good writing ability and the wherewithal to present the factual and legal allegations in his Complaint. Further, the issues arising in this action are not unduly complicated. In sum, plaintiff has failed to show a particular need or exceptional circumstances that require the assistance of a trained practitioner at this time. Civil Action No.: ELH-11-03488

Case 1:11-cv-03488-ELH Document 5 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 2

Therefore, it is this 12th day of December, 2011, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion To Appoint Counsel (ECF 3) is DENIED, without prejudice.

/s/ Ellen Lipton Hollander United States District Judge

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful