Filed: Dec. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER NATHANIEL M. GORTON , District Judge . Plaintiff, Dr. Rajani Kanth, appears pro se in this action of alleged employment discrimination against Harvard University. In response to the notice of scheduling conference set for Friday, January 5, 2018, plaintiff has filed a motion to continue that conference and a motion to appoint counsel to represent him in this civil case. Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel as of right and, despite his claimed indigency, there are no c
Summary: ORDER NATHANIEL M. GORTON , District Judge . Plaintiff, Dr. Rajani Kanth, appears pro se in this action of alleged employment discrimination against Harvard University. In response to the notice of scheduling conference set for Friday, January 5, 2018, plaintiff has filed a motion to continue that conference and a motion to appoint counsel to represent him in this civil case. Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel as of right and, despite his claimed indigency, there are no co..
More
ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Dr. Rajani Kanth, appears pro se in this action of alleged employment discrimination against Harvard University. In response to the notice of scheduling conference set for Friday, January 5, 2018, plaintiff has filed a motion to continue that conference and a motion to appoint counsel to represent him in this civil case.
Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel as of right and, despite his claimed indigency, there are no compelling reasons to make such an appointment at this time. DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991); see also Weir v. Potter, 214 F.Supp.2d 53, 54 (D. Mass. 2002) (in assessing whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant appointment, courts consider "merits of the case, the litigant's capability of conducting a factual inquiry, the complexity of the legal and factual issues, and the ability of the litigant to represent [him] self"). While the plaintiff may be indigent, he has not demonstrated "exceptional circumstances" that warrant appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 15) is therefore DENIED.
With respect to the continuance of the scheduling conference, the Court will make accommodation. Apparently, Plaintiff will be in Philadelphia, PA on other business between January 5 and January 8, 2018. The Court will therefore reset the scheduling conference for either Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 3:00 p.m., at plaintiff's convenience, so long as plaintiff notifies Deputy Clerk Christine Lima at (617) 748-9158 and defendant's counsel of record on or before Thursday, December 21, 2017 of his preference. If plaintiff is unable to attend in person he may appear telephonically provided he makes appropriate arrangements therefor with the Deputy Clerk.
Plaintiff is forewarned that he must also contact defendant's counsel to discuss counsel's availability for the rescheduled conference and in order to prepare for it in accordance with local rules.
If the Court does not hear from plaintiff in a timely manner in this regard, the scheduling conference will go forward as scheduled with or without plaintiff's attendance.
So ordered.
