Diaz-Castro v. Roman-Roman et al

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER. DENIED 9 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Maria Judith Diaz-Castro. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 8/11/2009.(LB)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

M A R IA JUDITH DIAZ-CASTRO Plaintiff v. R O M A N -R O M A N , ET AL Defendants CIVIL NO. 09-1033 (SEC)

O P I N IO N and ORDER O n May 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this Court appoint her counsel. F o r the following reasons, their request is DENIED. T h e United States Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases. Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Servcs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). In Lassiter, the Court f u rth e r stated that "an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, h e may be deprived of his physical liberty." Id. at 26-27. According to Mallard v. United States D is tric t Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 296-297 (1989), under former section 2 8 U.S.C. 1915(d), redesignated as 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), federal courts have the authority to re q u e st an attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case, but are without authority to re q u ire representation. While interpreting this rule, the district courts in the First Circuit have re ite ra te d that they have no authority to commit financial resources to appointed counsel, even w h e n exceptional circumstances are found, meriting the request of a member of the local bar to act as an attorney for an indigent civil defendant. Feliciano v. DuBois, 846 F. Supp. 1033, 1 4 0 (D. Mass. 1994). In terms of determining when pro bono representation should be requested from a m e m b e r of the bar, district courts in the First Circuit have found the need for exceptional

1 2

CIVIL NO. 09-1033 (SEC)

Page 2

c irc u m s ta n c e s to be present. Feliciano, supra, 846 F. Supp. at 1040. The First Circuit opinions 3 h a v e also reiterated the need for exceptional circumstances in order to appoint counsel in civil 4 rig h ts cases. See e.g. Bemis v. Kelly, 857 F.2d 14, 15 (1 Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the indigent 5 litig a n t bears the burden of showing that exceptional circumstances in his or her case justify said 6 a p p o in tm e n t, such as his or her inability to conduct whatever factual investigation is necessary 7 to support his or her claim, the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved, and the 8 c a p a b ility of the indigent litigant to present the case. Bemis, 857 F.2d at 15-16 (1988). Plaintiff 9 h a s failed to show that the facts and legal issues in the instant case make such appointment 10 n e c e s sa ry. Due to the lack of extraordinary circumstances, and the lack of authorization to 11 e x p e n d judicial resources on appointed counsel, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to 12 a p p o in tm e n t of counsel in the current case. 13 I T IS SO ORDERED. 14 S a n Juan, Puerto Rico, this 11th day of August, 2009. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S / Salvador E. Casellas S A L V A D O R E. CASELLAS U .S . Senior District Judge