USCA1 Opinion

          May 24, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 94-2242

                               EDWARD V. ZOLOTAREVSKY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              CITY OF WORCESTER, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                    [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                        Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                               ______________

                                 ____________________

            Edward V. Zolotarevsky on brief pro se.
            ______________________
            David  M. Moore, City  Solicitor, and   Diana  H. Horan, Assistant
            _______________                         _______________
        City Solicitor, on brief  for defendants-appellees, City of Worcester,
        Massachusetts and Worcester Police Department.
            Joseph T.  Black, Black &  McCue on  brief for defendant-appellee,
            ________________  ______________
        Worcester Polytechnic Institute's Security Department.


                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________























                 Per  Curiam.   We have  carefully reviewed  the parties'
                 ___________

            briefs  and the  record on  appeal.   We affirm  the district

            court  judgment of  November  14, 1994,  essentially for  the

            reasons   stated  in   the  magistrate  judge's   report  and

            recommendation,  dated August  30,  1994.   We  add only  the

            following.

                 Contrary to plaintiff's  suggestion, the Americans  with

            Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336 (codified at 42

            U.S.C.    12101, et  seq.) ("ADA") does not  entitle him to a

            free lawyer in a civil case.  Indeed, the ADA is not directed

            at the federal government at all.  See, e.g., Title II of the
                                               ___  ____

            ADA,  42  U.S.C.    12131  et  seq., (prohibiting  disability

            discrimination   by  instrumentalities  of  state  and  local

            governments).

                 In any event, the district court did not abuse its broad

            discretion  in denying plaintiff's  motion to appoint counsel

            in  this civil case.  Although plaintiff is legally blind, he

            was  aided by  his father  in the  drafting of  the submitted

            papers.  Plaintiff's request  for appointed counsel was based

            on the  not  uncommon plea  that,  as  a lay  person,  he  is

            unschooled in the  intricacies of the law.   Nonetheless, the

            papers  demonstrated an  ability  to research  and argue  the

            merits of his cause.   His impaired vision did  not adversely

            impact his  ability to represent  himself.  In  addition, the

            merits  of the case and  the relatively non-complex nature of





















            the   legal   issues   did   not  present   the   exceptional

            circumstances which would warrant the appointment of counsel.

            See DesRosiers v. Moran,  949 F.2d 15, 23-24 (1st  Cir. 1991)
            ___ __________    _____

            (outlining  the considerations  underlying  the  decision  to

            appoint counsel in civil cases).

                 Affirmed.
                 _________









































                                         -3-