Pangelinan v. Dept. of Corrections

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 10, 2012
• Docket: CV0187-06
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

, ~rr;tor~ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM FfLE law librarl 3 20l? JAN 10 PM q:oo ) 4 FRANK E. PANGELINAN, ) 5 ) Plaintiff, ) 6 ) DECISION AND ORDER v. ) ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 7 ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 8 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AS AN) INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE ) 9 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, ) ) to Defendant. ) II ----------------------------) 12 INTRODUcrION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III, on the plaintiff 14 motion for appOintment of counsel. Assistant Attorney General William C. Bischo IS represented the Department of Corrections. Plaintiff appeared pro se. After consideratio 16 of the parties' arguments the Court now issues its Decision and Order. 17 FAcrUAL HISTORY 18 Plaintiff is an inmate at the Guam Department of Corrections ("DOC"). Plaintiff fil 19 a complaint on February 23, 2006 initiating this action alleging negligence by DOC i 20 overseeing and protecting inmates. Currently, the plaintiff is apparently classified as 21 "maximum custody'" inmate and because of this classification, the plaintiff is not allowe 22 physical access to DOC's law library to conduct research. Moreover, plaintiff alleges tha 23 DOC does not provide legal assistance to inmates from persons trained in the law. Due t 24 plaintiffs limited knowledge of the law and his lack of access to legal research materials 25 plaintiff filed the present motion requesting that this Court appoint counsel to assi 26 plaintiff in prosecuting his civil action. 27

J. DISCUSSION 2 The issue presented here is whether an indigent prisoner who has successfully file 3 a civil claim, but lacks physical access to a law library should be appointed counsel to assis 4 in the prosecution of the civil action? This Court finds that Guam law does not grant th 5 trial court authority to appoint counsel to assist a prisoner under these circumstances. 6 Guam Miscellaneous Rule 1.1.1(B) allows a trial court to appoint counsel for a pro s 7 plaintiff only under specific circumstances: 8 B. Discretionary. The court may appoint counsel for a person who is 9 financially unable to obtain representation who is: 10 1. charged with civil or criminal contempt and facing loss of liberty; 1\ 2. seeking collateral relief from a judgment in a criminal matter; or, 12 3. a person whose rights under the United States Constitution (or the 13 Organic Act) may be substantially infringed without the appointment of 14 counsel.

15 MR 1.1.1(B). Here, plaintiff is not charged with contempt nor is he seeking collateral relie 16 from a judgment in a criminal matter. Therefore, this Court may only appoint counsel i 17 plaintiffs constitutional rights could be substantially infringed without assistance fro 18 someone trained in the law. Given his circumstances, plaintiff apparently argues that he ha 19 a constitutional right to access to the courts to prosecute his civil action and that this righ 20 will be infringed if this court does not appoint an attorney to assist plaintiff. Despit 21 plaintiffs unique circumstances, this court finds that plaintiffs right to access to the cou 22 has been adequately protected, that plaintiff is not entitled to appointed counsel, and tha 23 MR 1.1.1(B) does not grant this court discretion to appoint counsel in this case. 24 It is well settled that incarcerated individuals have a constitutional right t 25 meaningful access to the courts. See generally Bounds v. Smith. 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 149 26 (1977). This right "requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and 27 filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries 0 28 adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds. 430 U.S. at 828, 97 S.Ct a 1498 (1977). However, it is also accepted that the right of access to the courts is narrow i

.2 scope and does not extend to enabling prisoners to litigate their claims with maximu 2 effectiveness once in court. See Lewis v. Casey. 518 U.S. at 534, 360 116 S.Ct. 2174, 218 3 (explaining that constitutional concerns are satisfied so long as prisoners receive "th 4 minimal help necessary" to present their legal claims to the courts). 5 Simply put, there is no constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil case 6 DesRosiers. 949 F.2d at 23; see also Knop v. Johnson. 977 F.2d 996, 1009 (6th Cir. 1992) 7 ("if the ordinary law-abiding Michigander has no constitutional right of access to the publi 8 purse for legal assistance on claims involving such things as domestic relations, persona

9 injury, deportation, workers compensation, social security, detainer, wills and estates, an

to taxation, it does not seem to us that such a constitutional right springs into existence b virtue of the needy person's having been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison"). I II the civil context, the right to affirmative assistance is limited to matters involving civi 12 rights and habeas corpus complaints. Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d 856, 860-61 (10th Cir.1985), 13 see also DesRosiers v. Moran. 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). Even where a prisoner i 14 entitled to affirmative assistance in filing meaningful legal papers, this right extends "onl 15 during the pleading stage ...." Cornett v. Donovan. 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995); Lewi 16 v. Casey. 518 U.S. 343, 360, 2184 ("the Constitution does not require that prisoners Oiterat 17 or illiterate) be able to conduct generalized research, but only that they be able to presen 18 their grievances to the courts"); see generally. Bounds. 430 U.S. 817 (emphasizing th 19 importance of allowing a prisoner to present "claims" and "petitions"). Indigent person 20 receive meaningful access to the courts when they are provided sufficient assistance tha 21 "will enable them to research the law and determine what facts may be necessary to state

22 cause of action." Hossman v. Spradlin. 812 F.2d 1019, 1021 (7th Cir. 1987).

23 In the present case, neither the nature of plaintiffs complaint nor the stage of th proceedings raises a constitutional concern entitling him to affirmative assistance by th 24 state in maintaining his civil negligence action. Plaintiffs complaint contains allegations i 25 support of a negligence cause of action under Guam law and does not relate to either a civi 26 rights claim or a habeas petition. Moreover, even if the plaintiffs allegations were of a typ 27 that entitled him to assistance, his legal action is beyond the pleading stage and thus an 28 constitutional right to access to the courts has been satisfied. Plaintiff properly filed 1/

complaint alleging negligence. Moreover, the plaintiff successfully defended against 2 motion to dismiss that complaint Plaintiff has presented his claim to this court, hi 3 constitutional right to access appears to be secure, and there is no basis under the Gua 4 Rules upon which this court may appoint counsel. Moreover, even if this court wer

5 authorized to appoint counsel, this court does not believe that plaintiffs cause of actio

6 alleging inadequate protection of inmates by prison guards warrants appointment 0 counsel at the state's expense. 7 CONCLUSION 8

9 Because plaintiffs constitutional rights are not infringed by the absence 0

\0 appointed counsel this Court does not have the discretionary authority under MR 1.1.1(B

1\ to appoint counsel to assist in prosecuting Plaintiffs civil action. Based on the foregoin

12 Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. A Scheduling Conference is set fo

\3 March 5, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. JAN 0 9 2012 14

15 So ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2012.

17 HONORABLE 18 Presiding Judge, 19