USCA1 Opinion

        November 13, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT













                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1382 



                                 ALEX A. TARABOLSKI,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                             THE TOWN OF SHARON, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Alex A. Tarabolski on brief pro se.
            __________________

            Steven  R. Kruczynski  and Pamela  Storm on  brief  for appellees,
            _____________________      _____________

        Town  of  Sharon, Roni  Thaler, Henry  D.  Katz, Norman  Katz, Timothy

        Earley, David Martin and James Polito.

            Susan  E. Bernstein and  Morrison, Mahoney  & Miller  on brief for
            ___________________      ___________________________

        appellees, Donald Williams,  Frederick J. Jones,  Jr., Bernard  Coffey

        and Joseph Bernstein.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































                 Per  Curiam.     Alex  A.  Tarabolski  filed  pro  se  a
                 ___________                                   ___  __



            complaint alleging  that on  January 18, 1991,  Sharon police



            officer Donald Williams broke into his home and forced him to



            enter a hospital for  psychiatric examination in violation of



            his  federal  civil rights  and state  law.   In  addition to



            Williams,  Tarabolski sued  various  other  past and  present



            members of  the Sharon Police Department,  various members of



            the Sharon  Fire  Department, the  selectmen of  the Town  of



            Sharon, and the Town of Sharon.  The district court dismissed



            with prejudice  the claims  against the selectmen,  the Town,



            and the  fire department  officials  after Tarabolski  flatly



            refused  to  comply with  the court's  order  to file  a more



            definite  statement.  See Fed.  R.  Civ. P.  12(e).   Summary
                                  ___



            judgment  was  entered  in  favor of  the  police  department



            defendants on the remaining federal and state law claims. See
                                                                      ___



            Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).  This appeal followed.



                 Having reviewed the complaint, we are persuaded that the



            district  court  did not  abuse  its  discretion in  ordering



            Tarabolski  to   file  a   more  definite  statement.     The



            allegations  against the  selectmen, the  Town, and  the fire



            department  officials  were  vague  and  conclusory.    Given



            Tarabolski's  unwillingness  to elucidate,  and  the apparent



            lack  of merit  to his  claims, we  think the  district court



            acted within its discretion  in dismissing the claims against



            these defendants.  Cf. Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908-09 (1st
                               ___ _____    ____







                                         -2-





























            Cir.  1993)  (affirming  dismissal  with prejudice  based  on



            plaintiff's failure  to comply  with Fed. R.  Civ. P.  8(a)),



            cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1545 (1994).
            ____________



                 We review de novo the grant of summary judgment in favor
                           __ ____



            of the  police department defendants and  affirm the judgment



            essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.  We



            add  that   the  same  facts  which   justified  Williams  in



            concluding that Tarabolski required protective  custody would



            also  justify  a  reasonable  officer in  believing  that  an



            emergency warrantless  entry was appropriate.   See Mincey v.
                                                            ___ ______



            Arizona,  437 U.S.  385, 392-93 (1978)  (discussing emergency
            _______



            exception to  warrant requirement); Sheik-Abdi  v. McClellan,
                                                __________     _________



            37  F.3d 1240, 1244 (7th Cir. 1994) (same), cert. denied, 115
                                                        ____________



            S. Ct.  937 (1995).   Under  the circumstances,  the district



            court  did not  err in  ruling that  Williams is  entitled to



            qualified immunity.   See Hegarty v. Somerset County, 53 F.3d
                                  ___ _______    _______________



            1367, 1372-79 (1st Cir. 1995) (qualified immunity affords law



            enforcement officials  a  safe  haven  where  the  challenged



            conduct is objectively reasonable).



                 We have carefully considered Tarabolski's  objections to



            various interim rulings of the district court and reject them



            as without merit.   We note, in particular, that  there is no



            absolute constitutional  right to  a free  lawyer in  a civil



            case,   see  DesRosiers v. Moran,  949 F.2d 15,  23 (1st Cir.
                    ___  __________    _____



            1991), and we  find no  abuse of discretion  in the  district







                                         -3-





























            court's denial of  Tarabolski's requests for  court-appointed



            counsel.   Finally, we add that to the extent that Tarabolski



            seeks  relief  from  judgment   under  Rule  60(b)  based  on



            allegations   of  fraud,  such  a  request  is  appropriately



            addressed to the district court.  



                 Affirmed.  No costs.
                 _________



















































































                                         -4-