UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-23967-RAR

DANIEL DUMOND, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

OFFICER L. RODRIGUEZ, 

Defendant.

________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING THE MARSHAL TO SERVE DEFENDANT AND 

REFERRING CASE TO THE “VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY PROGRAM”

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s January 23, 2023 Notice (“Notice”). 

[ECF Nos. 10, 10-1]. In the Court’s previous orders, the Court advised Plaintiff that he was 

required to either file a notice indicating his intent to proceed with his claim against Officer L. 

Rodriguez or, in the alternative, file an amended complaint. See Order Dismissing Complaint 

[ECF No. 4] at 11; Order to Amend [ECF No. 8] at 4–5. In his Notice, Plaintiff has informed the 

Court that he “wishes to proceed against Officer Rodriguez and the officers of the Miami Dade 

Police Department who use[d] excessive force against the plaintiff during his arrest on 9/21/2020.” 

Notice at 1. The Court will, of course, now direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Officer 

Rodriguez, but will first address two other issues raised in Plaintiff’s Notice.

First, as the Court has already explained to Plaintiff, his suit cannot proceed against “the 

officers of the Miami Dade Police Department who use[d] excessive force” yet. The Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure do not allow Plaintiff to bring “a claim against a group of unknown or 

unidentifiable police officers.” Order Dismissing Complaint [ECF No. 4] at 5 (citing Richardson 

v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010)). Fortunately, Plaintiff already possesses some

Case 1:22-cv-23967-RAR Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

important information about the officers’ identities (e.g., the date they worked) so the Court has

no doubt that Plaintiff will eventually be able to learn the police officer’s identities during the 

natural course of litigation. Once he does, Plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended complaint 

that brings claims against both Officer Rodriguez and the as-of-yet unnamed police officers. See 

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). 

Second, in a letter addressed to the Court, which was attached to the Notice, Plaintiff claims 

that he is “indigent” and that he is requesting “legal aid.” Letter to Court [ECF No. 10-1] at 2. 

The Court will liberally construe this as a motion to appoint counsel in this civil rights case. See 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally 

construed[.]”) (cleaned up). The Court will grant this request in part. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, 

there is no “constitutional right to counsel” in a § 1983 case, and courts “should appoint counsel

[only] in exceptional circumstances.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). The 

Eleventh Circuit has held that a § 1983 complaint that raises excessive force claims is “not so 

unusual” as to require the district court to appoint counsel for a pro se plaintiff. Wright v. 

Langford, 562 F. App’x 769, 777 (11th Cir. 2014). However, since Plaintiff would greatly benefit 

from legal representation, the Court will refer this case to the “Volunteer Attorney Program,” 

where a volunteer attorney may choose to represent Plaintiff on a pro bono basis.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1],

the Screening Order [ECF No. 4], this Order, and the appropriate summons on the following 

Defendant:

Officer L. Rodriguez 

# ID9831 D3507

Miami-Dade Police Department

9105 NW 25th Street 

Doral, FL 33172 

Case 1:22-cv-23967-RAR Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

In the event that personal service cannot be effected upon an individual defendant, the Marshal 

may substitute service, if necessary, in accordance with applicable federal and/or state law. When 

doing so, the Marshal shall make clear and specific notations on the “Process Receipt and Return,” 

by recording the accepting officer’s full name, title, and badge number, in addition to the Marshal’s 

remarks explaining the reason that the named individual could not be personally served. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3).

2. The case shall be REFERRED to the Court’s Volunteer Attorney Program. The

Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to post the following description of this case:

The Plaintiff, Daniel Dumond, has filed a civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an officer employed by the MiamiDade Police Department for his deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s 

safety and medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that the officer 

intentionally and maliciously drove his squad car in a reckless 

manner, knowing that Plaintiff was unrestrained and injured in the 

back seat, with the intention of harming Plaintiff The Plaintiff may 

also bring claims in the future against other law enforcement officers 

for their alleged use of excessive force during Plaintiff’s arrest, but 

the identity of these officers is still unknown. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 26th day of January, 2023. 

 _________________________________ 

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Daniel Dumond, pro se

200145372 

Miami-Dade County – Metro West

Inmate Mail/Parcels

13850 NW 41st Street 

Miami, FL 33178 

Case 1:22-cv-23967-RAR Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 3 of 3