Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00555-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

1 Plaintiff uses exhibit numbers, but they do not meaningfully differentiate between exhibits. 

- 1 - 04cv0555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE MIRANDA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04cv0555-LAB (CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL OR

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

vs.

HARVEY M. BOOKER, Supervisor I.N.S.

Inspector, KENNETH WALSH, I.N.S.

Inspector, RIAD TAYIAN, I.N.S. Inspector,

CLAUDIA RIOS, I.N.S. Inspector, LISSETE

GUZMAN, I.N.S. Inspector, MR.

NEDDERMEYER, I.N.S. Agent, JOHN

DOE(S) 1-10, in their individual capacities,

et. al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a prisoner in federal custody, has alleged mistreatment at the hands of federal officials

when he tried to enter the United States at the San Ysidro border crossing. He is proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, and seeks damages and equitable relief. After extensive efforts, it now appears

he has served Defendants in this action, and Defendant Walsh has filed an answer. Plaintiff’s three

previous requests for appointment of counsel have been denied.

Plaintiff admits he is a Mexican national and neither a citizen nor a legal resident of the U.S.,

although he says he was raised in the U.S. since he was five years old and his wife and child are both

U.S. citizens. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 14 (Plaintiff’s letter to F.B.I., attached as

unenumerated1 exhibit).) Along with the FAC, he submitted documents suggesting that he had been

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 96 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

- 2 - 04cv0555

previously deported (FAC at 20 (U.S. Customs and Border Protection Memorandum, attached as

unenumerated exhibit), 21 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, attached as unenumerated

exhibit).) While it has not clearly been explained what charges Plaintiff was convicted of, he has been

either in custody or incarcerated for a period of four years. (Id. at 18–21 (identifying the dates of

Plaintiff’s arrest and interview as August 13 and 14, 2003).)

I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel or for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for appointment of counsel or, in the alternative, for

preliminary injunctive relief (the “Motion”). He represents that he is about to be released from custody

and removed to Mexico. (Motion, ¶ 3 (giving his deportation date as September 28, 2007).) If counsel

is not appointed, he seeks an order granting him leave to remain in the United States to prosecute his

case. Plaintiff says he is determined to persist in prosecuting his claims. (Id., ¶ 34.)

Plaintiff represents he has attempted to retain counsel, but has not been able to do so. (Motion,

¶ 2.) In support of this, he attaches correspondence with several organizations and law offices. (Id.

at 7–13.) Plaintiff argues he is likely to prevail on the merits, but that he cannot prosecute his case

unless the relief he seeks is granted. He argues he cannot prosecute his case from Mexico, because

he says no library there contains the resources he needs to conduct legal research. (Id. ¶ 3.) He also

contends he will need to make personal court appearances when the case goes to trial. (Id.)

II. Discussion

A. Appointment of Counsel

“[A]n indigent’s right to appointed counsel is that such a right has been recognized to exist

only where the litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation.” Lassiter v. Department

of Social Services of Durham County, N. C., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the

district court has “the discretion to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant.” Wilborn

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citation omitted). “The court may appoint

counsel under section 1915(d) only under ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted). “A finding of exceptional circumstances

requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 96 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

- 3 - 04cv0555

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (internal

citation omitted).

Plaintiff contends he is likely to succeed on the merits. The FAC alleges that, when he

attempted to enter the United States, officers detained and mistreated him, using excessive force.

Plaintiff has attached some exhibits in support of these claims. However, certain other exhibits he has

attached to the FAC, together with Defendant Walsh’s answer to it, suggest that Defendants will argue

Plaintiff had been drinking at the time he attempted to cross the border and resisted their lawful efforts

to restrain and interview him, necessitating their use of force. (See Walsh Answer at 8; FAC at 38

(U.S. Customs and Border Protection Memorandum, attached as unenumerated exhibit, detailing

Plaintiff’s possible intoxication and violent resistance.) They may also argue that Plaintiff sustained

some of his injuries before he was in their custody. (Walsh Answer at 8:5–6.) Other than Plaintiff’s

own testimony, it is unclear what evidence Plaintiff may be able to present to show that the force used

was excessive under the circumstances, or when or by whom he was injured. Plaintiff may be able to

prevail on this claim, but the Court cannot say at this time he is likely to prevail.

The Court finds that, while Plaintiff’s deportation to Mexico and inability to return to the

United States may make prosecution of his claim more difficult, there is no clear reason why he cannot

continue to pursue it. Plaintiffs who cannot enter the United States are not per se incapable of

prosecuting their claims in U.S. courts. See, generally, e.g., Hilska v. Jones, 217 F.R.D. 16 (D.D.C.

2003) (ruling on motions in action brought and being prosecuted by pro se plaintiff, a citizen of

Finland who had been deported from the United States). 

Plaintiff’s contention that no Mexican library contains the materials he needs is not credible

and, in any event, he has not argued he cannot conduct legal research in Mexico on the internet. See

Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 2006) (refusing to accept the argument that

petitioner could not have learned of relevant U.S. legal decisions while in Mexico, in part because he

could have used the internet to do so). While legal correspondence may be delayed somewhat, there

is no showing at this time Plaintiff cannot prosecute his case while in Mexico using the mails and

appearing telephonically for hearings if necessary. It is unclear at this time whether this case will go

to trial, and no court appearances are immediately required or are likely to be required at any time in

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 96 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

- 4 - 04cv0555

the near future. If it does go to trial, Plaintiff may again seek injunctive relief, but until that time, his

request is unripe.

Weighing the factors cited in Terrell, 935 F.2d at1017, the Court finds no exceptional

circumstances at this time that would justify appointment of counsel.

B. Preliminary Injunctive Relief

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve rights pending resolution of the merits

of the case by the trial.” Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989).

A preliminary injunction is appropriate “where plaintiffs demonstrate either: (1) a likelihood of

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions going to the

merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor.” Southwest Voter

Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 917–18 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted).

The likelihood of success on the merits and possibility of irreparable injury, as discussed

above, do not favor granting injunctive relief. While serious questions going to the merits were raised

in the FAC, the balance of hardships does not tip in Plaintiff’s favor at all. Permitting him to remain

in the United States during the pendency of this action under some custody or monitoring arrangement

would be impractical, burdensome, and expensive; and permitting him to remain in the United States

on his own recognizance would be imprudent. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 96 Filed 09/21/07 Page 4 of 4