Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08197/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Mining Claim Ejectment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Frank Melluzo, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8197-PCT-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Defendants Jennie Cimarelli, Aladino

Cimarelli, and the Cimarelli Family Trust’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Dkt.#31), Motion

to Continue the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, (Dkt.#34), and Plaintiff the United States’

Motion to Strike the Answer Filed on Behalf of Defendants Aladino Cimarelli and The

Cimarelli Family Trust, (Dkt.#33), and Motion to Strike the Motion to Continue, (Dkt.#35).

After reviewing the record and determining oral argument unnecessary, the Court issues the

following Order.

On November 2, 2009, the United States filed suit against Frank Melluzzo, Wanita

Melluzzo, and the Frank and Wanita Melluzzo Family Trust (“the Melluzzo Defendants”),

and Aladino Cimarelli and Jennie Cimarelli and The Cimarelli Family Trust (“the Cimarelli

Defendants”) for claims of trespass, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The United States

alleges that the Melluzzo and Cimarelli Defendants engaged in mining and extraction related

activities on property belonging to the federal government. Specifically, the United States

Case 3:09-cv-08197-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

contends that the Melluzzo and Cimarelli Defendants are successors-in-interest to an

individual who was granted a surface interest in a tract of land pursuant to the Stock-Raising

Homestead Act of 1916, 43 U.S.C. §§ 291-302. The United States contends that, pursuant

to the Act, the original conveyance granted only the surface estate with the mineral estate

reserved for the federal government. Accordingly, the United States alleges that the Melluzzo

and Cimarelli Defendants never possessed the legal title required to mine and extract

resources from the property or to authorize other individuals to engage in the same. 

On April 7, 2010, this Court held a status hearing to resolve the issue of whether

Jennie Cimarelli, who has been appearing pro se in this litigation, would be permitted to act

in a representative capacity on behalf of The Cimarelli Family Trust, as well as her husband,

Aladino Cimarelli, who is afflicted with Alzheimer’s Disease. At the hearing, the Court noted

that once a civil lawsuit has been commenced, parties may prosecute their own cases

personally or by counsel, but a non-attorney has no authority to appear or act on behalf of

others. See Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). The

Court informed Mrs. Cimarelli that she may not represent The Cimarelli Family Trust in this

litigation, even if she is the trustee. See R. Charles Bryfogle/MacKenzie Trust (1998) v.

Afinowich, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0790, 2007 WL 5463550, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2007)

(noting that a trust may only be represented in court by a licensed attorney). The Court also

told Mrs. Cimarelli that she may not act in a representative capacity on behalf of her

husband, Mr. Aladino Cimarelli, irrespective of their close family relationship or any power

of attorney that she may hold over Mr. Cimarelli’s affairs due to his unfortunate illness. See

Byers-Watts v. Parker, 18 P.3d 1265, 1269-1270 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001); Haberkorn v. Sears,

Roebuck & Co., 427 P.2d 378, 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). 

The Court also noted at the hearing that Mr. Cimarelli and The Cimarelli Family Trust

might be subject to a default judgment, should they remain unable to secure legal

representation to enter an appearance on their behalf in this litigation (although Mr. Cimarelli

may theoretically appear pro se and represent himself). At the conclusion of the hearing, the

Court informed Mrs. Cimarelli that she would have until April 14, 2010 to submit paperwork

Case 3:09-cv-08197-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

detailing her family’s finances in order to file a motion seeking court appointed counsel.

On April 14, 2010, Mrs. Jennie Cimarelli submitted a motion on behalf of herself, Mr.

Cimarelli, and The Cimarelli Family Trust, requesting that the Court appoint counsel to assist

them in defending this lawsuit. (Dkt.#31). That motion was accompanied by a completed

application to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 23, 2010, the United States filed a notice

of non-opposition to the Cimarelli Defendants request for court appointed counsel. (Dkt.#32).

That same day, April 23, 2010, the United States moved the Court to strike the Answer Mrs.

Cimarelli had previously submitted on behalf of herself and the other Cimarelli Defendants.

(Dkt.#33). The United States argued that the Cimarelli Defendants’ Answer should be struck

to the extent it purports to make an appearance on behalf of Mr. Cimarelli and The Cimarelli

Family Trust. On April 23, 2010, Mrs. Cimarelli filed an additional motion on behalf of

herself and the other Cimarelli Defendants, requesting that the Court postpone the Rule 16

Scheduling Conference set for May 5, 2010 until after it rules on the outstanding Motion to

Appoint Counsel. (Dkt.#34). The United States again moved to strike this submission insofar

as the motion to postpone the Rule 16 hearing attempts to make an appearance on behalf of

Mr. Cimarelli and The Cimarelli Family Trust. (Dkt.#35).

With respect to the Cimarelli Defendants’ Motion to Appoint Counsel, it must be

noted that here is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of

Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). Under the in forma pauperis statute, 28

U.S.C. § 1915, the district court is nevertheless empowered to request the appointment of pro

bono counsel to represent any person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1);

United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 1965). But this is only done in

“exceptional circumstances,” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

375 U.S. 845, (1963), and courts cannot compel a lawyer to take on representation of a civil

litigant. Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296

(1989). In addition, “[c]ourts are reluctant to appoint counsel for persons who could retain

legal services independently because § 1915(e) is expressly directed to indigent parties.”

Gonzalez v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., No. CV 08-2391-PHX-DGC, 2009 U.S. Dist.

Case 3:09-cv-08197-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 5
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

 28 U.S.C. § 1915 reads in pertinent part: “any court of the United States may

authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit . . . without prepayment of

fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit . . . that the person

is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the

action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915(a)(1). 

- 4 -

LEXIS 15903, *6 n.4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13 2009).1

Although the Court is sympathetic to the situation in which Mr. and Mrs. Cimarelli

now find themselves in, the Court cannot grant their request to appoint counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1915. Upon review, the financial information submitted by Mr. and Mrs.

Cimarelli does not support a request by this Court for the appointment of counsel. As

mentioned above, appointment of counsel in a civil case is rarely invoked and is typically

reserved for indigent litigants. See Gonzalez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15903, *6 n4. While

by no means possessing unlimited resources, Mr. and Mrs. Cimarelli do not fall within the

financial category of litigants who are typically granted in forma pauperis status or

considered for court appointed representation. In addition, the Cimarelli’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel does not include any pertinent financial information related to The

Cimarelli Family Trust, and there is no indication that the Court may properly appoint

counsel for that entity. Because the Court will not request that outside counsel assume

representation of Mr. Cimarelli or The Cimarelli Family Trust, these two Defendants must

enter a valid appearance in this lawsuit or face the prospect of a default judgment.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendants Jennie Cimarelli, Aladino

Cimarelli, and the Cimarelli Family Trust’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dkt.#31).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that although Mrs. Cimarelli may sign legal papers

and appear in court on her own behalf, she may not represent the interests of her husband or

The Cimarelli Family Trust, regardless of any power of attorney – special or otherwise – that

Mrs. Cimarelli may hold.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Mrs. Cimarelli’s Motion to Continue the Rule

Case 3:09-cv-08197-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

16 Scheduling Conference. (Dkt.#34)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the United States’ Motion to Strike the

Motion to Continue, insofar as the Motion attempts to make an appearance on behalf of Mr.

Cimarelli and The Cimarelli Family Trust. (Dkt.#35). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the United States’ Motion to Strike the

Answer, insofar as the Answer attempts to make an appearance on behalf of Mr. Cimarelli

and The Cimarelli Family Trust. (Dkt.#33).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED moving the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference currently

set May 5, 2010 in TIME ONLY from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting leave for Mrs. Cimarelli appear

telephonically for the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08197-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 5