United States of America v. $7,877.61 United States Currency
Filing
31
DECISION & ORDER denying without prejudice 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying without prejudice 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying without prejudice 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is claimant's responsibility to retain an attorney or continue with this lawsuit prose. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 5/17/2012. (KAH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
09-CV-6306CJS
v.
$7,877.61 UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant.
The United States has commenced this civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C.
§ 881(a)(6). (Docket # 1). Claimant Harvey Bailey alleges that he earned the seized money
lawfully, rather than through a narcotics sale, as the government maintains. (Docket # 4 at ¶¶ 17,
66, 76, 80; see also Docket # 16). Currently before this Court are three motions by claimant for
the appointment of counsel. (Docket ## 18, 19, 23).
As an initial matter, claimant does not meet the requirements for appointment of
counsel in civil forfeiture actions under the Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(b).
Additionally, it is well-settled that there is no constitutional right to appointed
counsel in civil cases. Although the Court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), see, e.g., Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real
Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988), such assignment of counsel is clearly within the
judge’s discretion. In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). The factors to be
considered in deciding whether or not to assign counsel include the following:
1.
Whether the indigent’s claims seem likely to be of
substance;
2.
Whether the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts
concerning his claim;
3.
Whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for
cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the
fact finder;
4.
Whether the legal issues involved are complex; and
5.
Whether there are any special reasons why appointment of
counsel would be more likely to lead to a just
determination.
Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802
F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986). The same factors apply where a claimant in a civil forfeiture case moves
for the appointment of counsel. See, e.g., United States v. All Funds on Deposit in Any and All
Accounts, 2009 WL 2424337, *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
The Court must consider the issue of appointment carefully, of course, because
“every assignment of a volunteer lawyer to an undeserving client deprives society of a volunteer
lawyer available for a deserving cause.” Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d
Cir. 1989). Therefore, the Court must first look to the “likelihood of merit” of the underlying
dispute, Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d at 392; Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d at
174, and “even though a claim may not be characterized as frivolous, counsel should not be
appointed in a case where the merits of the . . . claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are
therefore poor.” Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001)
(denying counsel on appeal where petitioner’s appeal was not frivolous but nevertheless appeared
to have little merit).
2
First, as noted by Judge Siragusa in his November 11, 2010 Decision (Docket
# 10), claimant has not yet shown that he is indigent, a prerequisite for court-appointed counsel.
Even assuming claimant is indigent, the allegations considered in light of the factors required by
law, see Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392, and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d at 58, do not weigh
in favor of appointment of counsel at this time.
As stated above, an individual seeking appointment of counsel must demonstrate
a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d at 58. Although
the claimant argues that he earned the funds in question through lawful work rather than through
narcotics dealing (Docket # 4 at ¶¶ 17, 66, 76, 80), he has not demonstrated that he will likely
prevail.
Further, the remaining factors do not favor appointing counsel. Claimant may
investigate the crucial facts in this case through discovery; indeed, some of the relevant facts may
already have been developed through his criminal case. In addition, claimant appears capable of
representing himself, as indicated by the well-organized arguments he has already submitted to
the court. Finally, claimant’s case does appear to require the need for extensive
cross-examination or present any special reasons that would justify the assignment of counsel. It
is therefore the Decision and Order of this Court that claimant’s motions for the appointment of
3
counsel (Docket ## 18, 19, 23) are DENIED without prejudice at this time. It is the claimant’s
responsibility to retain an attorney or continue with this lawsuit pro se. 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
May 17 , 2012
4
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?