Espinosa-Cisneros v. Solis-Lopez

Filing 18

EMERGENCY ORDER that this case is referred to the Pilot Pro Bono Program adopted in General Order 2014-01 for the purpose of identifying an attorney willing to be appointed as a pro bono attorney for Respondent Marianela Solis Lopez.FURTHER ORDERE D that the Clerk of Court must forward this order to the Pro Bono Liaison. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will provide Spanish-language interpreters for all hearings in this case in which Petitioner and/or Respondent will appear. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/15/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: cc Mai Tieu - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LUIS RAUL ESPINOSA CISNEROS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) ) MARIANELA SOLIS LOPEZ, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:16-cv-00057-GMN-CWH EMERGENCY ORDER REFERRING CASE TO PRO BONO PROGRAM This is a case brought under the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International 13 Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) in which Petitioner Luis Raul Espinosa Cisneros alleges 14 his two minor children have been wrongfully taken from their habitual residence of Mexico to Las 15 Vegas, Nevada, by the children’s mother, Respondent Marianela Solis Lopez. Petitioner seeks an 16 order compelling the return of the minor children to Mexico, along with various other forms of 17 relief. The ultimate issue before this Court is not who, as between the parents, is best suited to 18 have custody of the children—it is to determine which court has the jurisdiction to determine 19 custody. The Hague Convention requires the expeditious handling of proceedings for the return of 20 children. The Federal Judicial Center provides a litigation guide for Hague Convention return 21 cases, available at http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/hagueguide.pdf/$file/hagueguide.pdf. 22 On March 15, 2016, the Court held a case-management conference in which Respondent 23 Marianela Solis Lopez appeared without an attorney. Respondent represented to the Court that she 24 has been unable to retain an attorney because she is unable to pay the requested $10,000.00 retainer 25 fee. Respondent also represented to the Court that return of the children to Mexico could expose 26 them to a grave risk of harm or even death. The Court continued the case-management conference 27 to Wednesday, March 23, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. to attempt to secure an attorney for Respondent. 28 Given that it appears that only limited discovery, if any, will be required, the Court intends to set an 1 evidentiary hearing shortly after next week’s case-management conference. 2 Under “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request an attorney to represent a person 3 who is unable to afford an attorney. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) 4 (quotation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an 5 evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to 6 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the issues involved. Neither of these 7 factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Terrell, 935 8 F.2d at 1017 (quotation omitted). 9 Given that Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the amended petition for removal, the 10 Court is unable to evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits. Regardless, in light of 11 Respondent’s representation that return of the children to Mexico would expose them to a grave 12 risk of harm, it appears Respondent may be able to establish a grave risk defense. Thus, this factor 13 weighs in favor of appointment of an attorney. As for the second factor, given the extreme urgency 14 of this case, the fact that return cases under the Hague Convention present complicated legal, 15 procedural, and logistical issues, and that Respondent does not speak English, the Court finds it 16 will be extremely difficult for Respondent to represent herself in this matter. Additionally, 17 appointment of an attorney is justified as the proceedings “will undoubtedly proceed more 18 efficiently and effectively” if Respondent has an attorney. Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 19 656 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The Court therefore finds exceptional circumstances exist 20 warranting the appointment of an attorney to represent Respondent. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is referred to the Pilot Pro Bono Program 22 adopted in General Order 2014-01 for the purpose of identifying an attorney willing to be appointed 23 as a pro bono attorney for Respondent Marianela Solis Lopez. The scope of the appointment will 24 be for representing Respondent to the conclusion of this case. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must forward this order to the Pro 26 Bono Liaison. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will provide Spanish-language interpreters for all hearings in this case in which Petitioner and/or Respondent will appear. 3 4 DATED: March 15, 2016. 5 6 7 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?