DiBuono v. Guckenheimer Enterprises, Inc., 4:10-cv-40255

Thomas J. DiBuono filed a December 22, 2010 complaint in the District of Massachusetts against Guckenheimer Enterprises, seeking wrongful termination relief while alleging an EEOC appeal, and requesting pro bono counsel and monetary damages.
DiBuono also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) and a motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 4).
The court found DiBuono unemployed with $1,746 monthly disability benefits, $550 cash/savings, but substantial assets including three vehicles, $1,800 in stocks, $21,000 in mutual funds, and real estate valued at $175,000.
Because of these assets, the court held DiBuono did not qualify for forma pauperis status and denied that motion.
The court ordered DiBuono to pay the $350 filing fee within 21 days; failure to pay would result in dismissal.
The court did not authorize preliminary screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) due to the denial of forma pauperis status, and denied DiBuono’s request for pro bono counsel, finding no exceptional circumstances and no basis for liability or complexity that would warrant appointment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status	DiBuono contends he cannot pay the filing fee.	DiBuono possesses assets and income that show he is not indigent.	Denied; must pay $350 filing fee.
Whether the court should appoint pro bono counsel	DiBuono seeks appointed counsel.	No exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment.	Denied.
Whether the complaint can be screened given the fee denial	Not explicitly stated; withdrawal of forma pauperis would affect screening.	Screening is not authorized once forma pauperis is denied.	Screening not authorized under § 1915(e).

Desrosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1991) (establishes standard for appointment of counsel; indigency and exceptional circumstances required)