Simmons v. Mischel

Background

Joyce Marie Simmons, a federal prisoner representing herself, sued several prison officials for allegedly violating her constitutional rights. Although she initially filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court construed the complaint as an action under Bivens, which allows certain claims against federal officials for constitutional violations.

With the court’s permission, Simmons filed an amended complaint attempting to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal law that permits certain tort claims against the United States. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, requested summary judgment. In an earlier order, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part: it dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the individual defendants with prejudice for failure to state a claim, but allowed a claim against the United States for supervisory negligence relating to an alleged battery by federal employee Ms. Phillips to proceed.

Because Simmons had not responded to the defendants’ motion, the court required her to state whether she intended to continue the case. She filed that notice and moved for appointment of counsel.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Simmons argued that she could not afford a lawyer, that imprisonment limited her ability to litigate, that the case required substantial research and investigation, that she had limited access to the law library and limited legal knowledge, and that counsel would better prepare the case for trial.

The court explained that a civil litigant generally has no constitutional right to appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may request a lawyer for a person unable to afford one when exceptional circumstances exist. The court considers both the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to present the claims without a lawyer, taking the factors together.

The court found that Simmons had demonstrated an ability to explain her claims and pursue the case without counsel. It therefore denied her motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances, without prejudice to renewal if the settlement proceedings were unsuccessful.

Settlement Proceedings and Stay

The court found the case suitable for its Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program because Simmons had stated a Federal Tort Claims Act claim for supervisory negligence against the United States and the court had denied the United States’ request for summary judgment or dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court referred the case to Judge Robert M. Illman for mediation through that program.

The settlement proceedings were ordered to occur within 90 days of the order’s filing date, subject to extensions that might be necessary because of the public-health crisis. Judge Illman was directed to coordinate the settlement conference and file a report within 10 days after the proceedings ended. The court stayed the case except for the settlement proceedings and related matters ordered by Judge Illman.

Disposition

The motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The case was referred to settlement proceedings before Judge Illman and stayed during those proceedings.