UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher G. Fournier

v. Civil No. 08-cv-338-JD

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Christopher Fournier, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, brought a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On April 10, 2009, the Warden filed a motion for summary

judgment. On April 23, 2009, Fournier notified the court that he

had moved from prison to Calumet House in Manchester. Fournier

was granted an extension of time until June 12, 2009, to respond

to the motion.

Fournier moved for an additional extension of time to

respond to the motion for summary judgment, contending that he

lacked access to legal materials while in transitional housing at

Calumet House. He asked that he be granted an extension of the

deadline for response until after he is released on parole. The

Warden failed to respond to Fournier’s motion, and was ordered to

do so to provide information about Fournier’s access to legal

research materials. The Warden’s response did not show that

Fournier had adequate access to legal research materials. The

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 31 Filed 07/31/09 Page 1 of 3
2

court granted an extension of time until August 1, 2009, and

warned Fournier that no additional extensions of time would be

granted unless Fournier could show that he was unable to conduct

research because of the restrictions imposed by his

incarceration.

On July 13, 2009, Fournier filed “Response to the Court’s

Most Recent Order,” referring to the order granting an extension

until August 1, which was docketed as a motion to stay the

proceedings. Fournier reports that he tried to do legal research

at the Manchester Public Library but was unable to access legal

research sites, such as LEXIS and WESTLAW, and that the library

lacked other resources for legal research. He explains that

although he was scheduled to be paroled on July 18, that would

not happen because he has been unable to find employment. He

states that he expects to be paroled within the next four to six

months. He asks that his case be stayed until either he is

returned to prison or paroled, when he will have access to legal

research materials. The Warden did not respond to Fournier’s

motion. 

A petitioner for habeas relief does not have a

constitutional right to counsel. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481

U.S. 551, 555 (1987). The court, however, may appoint counsel

for a financially eligible person if “the interests of justice so

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 31 Filed 07/31/09 Page 2 of 3
3

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Fournier, who is

proceeding in forma pauperis, is financially eligible for

appointed counsel. The court deems it to be in the interests of

justice to appoint counsel to represent Fournier in this matter

because of his demonstrated inability to access legal research

and to avoid the delay that would result if the case were stayed

until Fournier is released on parole.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s motion (document

no. 30) is granted to the extent that counsel will be appointed

to represent the petitioner in this case, and the petitioner’s

response to the pending motion for summary judgment will be due

thirty days from the date that counsel is appointed. Counsel

will be appointed from the court’s Criminal Justice Act list. 

SO ORDERED.

 Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 31, 2009

cc: Christopher G. Fournier, Pro se

 Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esq.

 Stephen D. Fuller, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 31 Filed 07/31/09 Page 3 of 3