Rosenberg v. Mass Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

____________________________________ ) DOUGLAS ROSENBERG, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 23-10441-FDS ) MASS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE ) CO., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

ORDER

SAYLOR, C.J. For good cause shown, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s second motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED. 2. The amended complaint (ECF No. 35, Ex. 1) will be deemed to have been filed on October 2, 2023. No further motions to amend the complaint will be granted absent a substantial showing of good cause. 3. Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he may elect to have the U.S. Marshals Service complete service with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3). If plaintiff chooses to have service on defendant Keith P. Gill completed by the USMS, he shall provide the agency with all papers for service and a completed USM-285 form for each party to be served. The USM-285 form may be found at www.usmarshals.gov/process/usm285.pdf or from the clerk upon request. The USMS shall then complete service, as directed by plaintiff, with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States. Consequently, plaintiff’s motions to update the address 4. Plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date of the issuance of the summons to complete service. Failure to complete service within 90 days will likely result in dismissal of the action without further notice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m); Local Rule 4.1 (D. Mass.). 5. Although under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court “may request an attorney to represent any

person unable to afford counsel,” it is well settled that “[t]here is no absolute constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil case.” DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). On the current record, although plaintiff appears indigent, he has not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” that warrant the appointment of counsel. See id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 34) is DENIED. 6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the initial complaint (ECF No. 22) is terminated as moot. 7. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond (ECF No. 31) is terminated as moot. 8. Plaintiff’s first motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 32) is terminated as moot. 9. Defendants Mass Mutual Life Insurance Co. and MML Investors Services are directed to file any responses to the amended complaint by October 23, 2023.

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: September 29, 2023 Chief Judge, United States District Court