Stafa v. Innovative Facility Services

Background

Lule Stafa requested pro bono counsel, meaning representation by a volunteer lawyer, under the federal statute that permits courts to request an attorney for a person unable to afford counsel. The court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a court-provided lawyer and that the court may request, but cannot require, an attorney to volunteer. Courts also do not have funds to pay counsel in civil cases.

At the time of the request, not all defendants had been served or appeared. One defendant who had appeared filed a dispositive motion to dismiss, and Stafa opposed that motion. The opinion does not identify which defendant had appeared.

Reasons for Denial

The court first considers whether a self-represented litigant’s position appears likely to have merit. The court concluded that the case was still at too early a stage to assess the merits because a motion to dismiss was pending and not all defendants had appeared.

The court also considered whether Stafa had shown that she could not effectively pursue the case without a lawyer. It found that her claims did not appear overwhelmingly complex and that her statement that she had given her reasons but was still unable to win the case did not establish that legal representation was necessary. The court further found that she had not demonstrated sufficient efforts to obtain counsel, because she described asking the district clerk’s office for help but did not describe other efforts to find a lawyer.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon declined, in the court’s discretion, to request pro bono counsel at that time. The court’s order states that Stafa’s motion for counsel was DENIED without prejudice for renewal at a later point in the litigation. The clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 21.