NZINGOULA v. US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 34

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR A HEARING, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND A FRENCH INTERPRETER ORDER mooting 27 Motion for Oral Argument; denying 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 27 Motion for Interpreter By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN H. RICH III. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

RITA NZINGOULA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES and U. S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-108-GZS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A HEARING, APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, AND A FRENCH INTERPRETER

On September 1, 2015, the pro se plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss filed
by the federal defendant (ECF No. 22), in which she also moved for a hearing, presumably on the
motion, appointment of counsel, and for a French interpreter. Plaintiff’s Motion Contesting
AUSA’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) at [4]. In reply, the federal defendant withdrew its
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28), rendering moot the plaintiff’s request for a hearing.1 Because
the plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel and for the presence of a French interpreter were
not necessarily limited to the federal defendant’s motion to dismiss, and are likely to recur in any
event, I will act on them at this time. For the reasons that follow, the requests are denied.
I.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

“There is no absolute constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil case.” DesRosiers v.
Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). The plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status

1

If the plaintiff meant to request hearings on any subsequently-filed motions, the request is premature.

1

(ECF No. 11), and the governing federal statute provides that the court “may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The appointment of
counsel under the statute is discretionary in civil cases, but generally is limited to “exceptional
circumstances.” DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 23. “[A] court must examine the total situation, focusing,
inter alia, on the merits of the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant’s ability to
represent [her]self.” Id. at 24.

For example, the presence of “readily mastered facts and

straightforward law” would suggest that a request for counsel “should be denied in a civil case.”
Id. Denial of an indigent plaintiff’s request for counsel is error only if the denial “was likely to
result in fundamental unfairness impinging on [her] due process rights.” Id. at 23.
Following a review of the plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and the numerous other
documents that she has filed on the court’s electronic docket (ECF Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 26), I
conclude that the law and facts relevant to the plaintiff’s case are sufficiently straightforward that
the plaintiff should be able to represent herself, and that her case does not present “exceptional
circumstances” that would warrant the appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Penn v. U. S. Dep’t of
Justice, No. CIV S-10-2494 GEB EFB PS, 2012 WL 761741, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (pro
se plaintiff not entitled to appointed counsel in connection with FOIA request); Rankin v. FBI, Civ.
A. No. 92-662, 1992 WL 25853, at *1 (E.D Pa. Feb. 7, 1992) (same). The motion for appointment
of counsel is DENIED.2
II.

Motion for Interpreter

With respect to the plaintiff’s request for an interpreter, federal law governing interpreters
in federal courts states that interpreters will be provided by the court in civil cases involving the
United States upon request and demonstration of need only in judicial proceedings instituted by

2

I note that in her opposition, the plaintiff refers to being represented by counsel, ECF No. 26 at [2], presumably in
connection with parallel state court proceedings involving the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.

2

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1). This action was initiated by the plaintiff, not by the
United States. In addition, the documents filed by the plaintiff do not demonstrate any difficulty
on the part of the plaintiff with the English language or any difficulty with comprehension of the
proceedings. Accordingly, the request for an interpreter is DENIED.
III.

Defendants’ Dispositive Motions

The state defendant has filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33), to which the time for filing
an opposition has expired.
Giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, she may have assumed that she could wait to
respond to the state’s motion to dismiss until her motion for appointment of counsel had been
resolved. Therefore, I extend the plaintiff’s deadline for filing her opposition to the state’s motion
to dismiss to November 5, 2015, 14 days after the date of this order. Failure to file an opposition
to the motion on that date will result in a waiver of any opposition by the plaintiff. See Local Rule
7(b).
The federal defendant has filed a notice of its intent to file a motion for summary judgment
under this court’s Local Rule 56(h). ECF No. 29. The clerk of courts is directed to issue the
court’s standard procedural order scheduling a Local Rule 56(h) conference.
IV.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for a hearing is moot, and her motions for
appointment of counsel and an interpreter are denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 2015.
/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate Judge
3