Segura v. Wetzel et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 10/19/2017. (bg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JULIO CEASAR SEGURA,
Plaintiff
v.
SECRETARY JOHN WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-17-0931
(Judge Caputo)
MEMORANDUM
I.
Introduction
On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff, Julio Ceasar Segura, Jr., an inmate presently
confined
at
the
Smithfield
State
Correctional
Institution,
in
Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(ECF No. 1, Compl.) In his Complaint, Mr. Segura argues that he has a Mental
Health Stability Score of D, severely mentally ill, was improperly placed on the
Restricted Release List (RRL) and continues to be held in administrative custody
without due process.
Named as Defendants are the following Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (DOC) employees: Secretary John Wetzel; Executive
Deputy Shirley Moore-Smeal; and Regional Deputy Bickle.
Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel
(ECF Nos. 24 and 31) and motions for witnesses (ECF No. 26 and 32). For the
reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied.
II.
Motions for Appointment of Counsel
Mr. Segura has filed three motions for counsel. The first was filed while he
was housed in SCI-Camp Hill’s Mental Health Unit (MHU) and did not have access
to legal research materials.
(ECF No. 24.)
His second motion for counsel is
additionally premised on his unsuccessful attempts to secure counsel on his own
from agencies and organizations. (ECF No. 31.) His third motion (ECF No. 37) is
based on his indigent status and ongoing mental health issues which have
necessitated his transfer to various mental health settings within the DOC. The
Court notes that the DOC’s inmate locator, accessed this day, reflects Mr. Segura’s
current placement at SCI-Smithfield. See http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov.
Although prisoners have no constitutional or statutory right to appointment of
counsel in a civil case, the Court has discretion “to request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Parham v. Johnson,
126 F.3d 454, 456 – 57 (3d Cir. 1997); Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499
(3d Cir. 2002); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). “Appointing counsel
for an indigent civil litigant is ‘usually only granted upon a showing of special
circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice to him resulting, for
example, from his probable inability without such assistance to present facts and
legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case.’” Parkell v.
Danberg, 833 F.3d 313, 340 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d
22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984)) (emphasis in original).
-2-
“[V]olunteer lawyer time is a precious commodity”, Montgomery, 294 F.3d at
499, so the decision to recruit counsel for an indigent prisoner should be exercised
“discerningly.” Id. at 505 n.10. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has provided guidance for the exercise of the district court's discretion in this
regard.
At the threshold, the court must decide whether the plaintiff's case “has
some arguable merit in fact and law.” Id. at 499. A court need not appoint counsel
“if the indigent's chances of success on the merits are extremely slim.” Id. at 500
(quoting Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986)) (internal quotation
marks and brackets omitted). If the threshold requirement is met, the Court then
considers a number of factors established by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit to determine whether it is appropriate to request counsel for an
indigent party. These factors include:
(1)
the plaintiff's ability to present his own case;
(2)
the difficulty of the particular legal issues;
(3)
the degree to which factual investigation will be
necessary and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue
investigation;
(4)
the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his own behalf;
(5)
the extent to which a case is likely to turn on credibility
determinations; and
(6)
whether the case will require testimony from expert
witnesses.
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155 - 57. The plaintiff’s ability to present a case is “[p]erhaps the
most significant” consideration and depends on factors such as “the plaintiff’s
education, literacy, prior work experience, and prior litigation experience … along
-3-
with a plaintiff’s ability to understand English …[and] the restraints placed upon a
prisoner plaintiff by confinement.” Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 501 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Mr. Segura seeks the appointment of counsel based on his bi-polar mental
health issues and his confinement in a MHU which offers limited access to legal
research materials. Notably, Mr. Segura no longer labors under the restrictions of
the MHU setting and is currently housed at SCI-Smithfield. Mr. Segura’s ability to
communicate effectively in English is demonstrated by his various filings.
arguments are clearly worded and express rational arguments.
His
Moreover,
Defendants have yet to respond to the Complaint. Defendants will either challenge
the legal basis of the Complaint or file an answer. It is not until these matters are
resolved will the Court be able to examine the threshold question of arguable factual
and legal merit of Mr. Segura’s claims for the purpose of appointing counsel.
Having reviewed the Complaint and considered the nature of the factual and
legal issues involved, as well as Mr. Segura’s ability to present his claims, there is
no evidence, at this point, that any prejudice will result in the absence of counsel.
Consequently, the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time.
Mr.
Segura’s motions for counsel will be denied.
III.
Motions to Compel the Appearance of Witnesses
Plaintiff seeks to compel the appearance of various mental health
professionals to testify that his placement in a residential treatment unit (RTU)
“would be better fitting instead of RRL/DTU status” based on his mental health
-4-
status. (ECF No. 26.) Specifically, he seeks the Court to “call upon” the following
professionals to testify:
Rachel Fusco, Jeffrey Shook, Dr. Olsen and Mr. Dhiel.
(ECF Nos. 26 and 32.) As noted above, Defendants have yet to respond to the
Complaint.
The presentation of witnesses and other evidence in this matter is
premature. Moreover, the Court does not call or pay for medical experts on behalf of
a pro se litigant. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 159 (“There is no provision in the statute for
the payment by the government of the costs of deposition transcripts, or any other
litigation expenses, and no other statute authorizes courts to commit federal monies
for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent litigant.”)
As a pro se litigant, Mr. Segura will have the opportunity to conduct his own
discovery in this matter. Although incarcerated he may serve written interrogatories,
document requests, and requests for admissions. Notably, Mr. Segura recently filed
with the Court a request for production of documents addressed to the Defendants.
See ECF No. 41. While it is unnecessary for Plaintiff to file discovery requests with
the Court, unless in connection with a discovery dispute, his filing demonstrates his
ability to conduct discovery.
Accordingly, Mr. Segura’s motion for the Court to
compel the mental health witness to testify in this matter is premature and will be
denied.
An appropriate order will follow.
DATE: October 19, 2017
/s/ A. RICHARD CAPUTO
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge
-5-
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?