Weise v. U.S. Department of State

Background

Wolfgang Weise, who was representing himself, applied for appointment of pro bono counsel. He cited language challenges, a disability, and difficulties locating counsel on his own. Weise’s complaint alleges that the U.S. Department of State failed to issue him a United States passport, causing reputational, emotional, and psychological damage and trauma. He seeks monetary compensation.

Standard for Appointing Counsel

The court applied the Second Circuit’s multi-factor standard for appointing volunteer counsel in civil cases. The first and required threshold is whether the plaintiff’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional matters, including the plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present the case, the need for cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason appointment would help produce a fair result.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that the threshold requirement was not met. Referring to the government’s memorandum supporting its summary-judgment motion, the court stated that it appeared the denial of Weise’s passport request was proper. The court also stated that Weise had no direct remedy under the United States Constitution based on the Bivens doctrine, which concerns certain damages claims against federal officials, and that any claim he intended to bring under the Federal Tort Claims Act appeared barred because he had not exhausted administrative remedies. The opinion does not decide the government’s pending summary-judgment motion on the merits.

Other Pending Motions and Deadlines

The government had moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the required evidentiary showing is made. Weise had not timely responded. The court extended his response deadline to December 1, 2025, and set December 15, 2025, as the government’s reply deadline. The court attached a notice explaining that Weise could not rely only on his complaint and would need to submit evidence responding to the motion.

Weise also moved to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The government was ordered to respond by December 1, 2025, and Weise was given until December 15, 2025, to reply. The opinion does not decide that transfer request.

Disposition

The court found that Weise’s request for appointed counsel did not satisfy the required threshold and directed the Clerk of Court to close Dkt. No. 44. Judge Lewis J. Liman did not rule in this order on the pending summary-judgment motion or the motion to transfer venue. The court also informed Weise about a City Bar Justice Center clinic that may provide advice to unrepresented civil litigants, while explaining that the clinic is not part of the court and cannot file papers for him.