United States District Court, D. Connecticut
C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, Jose Garcia (“Garcia”), incarcerated
and pro se, has filed a Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. No. 44) and two Motions for Issuance of a
Subpoena (“Mot. Subpoena”) (Doc. Nos. 55, 56).
The defendants have filed a Motion to Seal Exhibits (Doc. No.
41) in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
reasons set forth below, the Motion for Appointment of
Counsel and the Motions for Issuance of a Subpoena are
denied, and the Motion to Seal is granted.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 44)
litigants do not have a constitutional right to the
appointment of counsel. See Hodge v. Police
Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) (district
judges are afforded “broad discretion” in
determining whether to appoint pro bono counsel for
an indigent litigant in a civil case); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”)
(emphasis added). The Second Circuit has made clear that
before an appointment is even considered in a civil action,
the indigent person must demonstrate that he or she is unable
to obtain counsel or legal assistance. See Hodge,
802 F.2d at 61.
attaches letters that he sent to six law firms seeking
representation and two letters from law firms declining to
accept Garcia's case. In a Ruling denying Garcia's
prior Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the court noted that
Garcia had not made any attempts to contact the Inmate Legal
Aid Program with regard to questions he might have about
litigating this case. See (Doc. No. 23) at 2. Garcia
does not allege that he has made any effort to contact the
Inmate Legal Aid Program since the court's prior ruling.
The court concludes that Garcia has made insufficient
attempts to secure legal assistance on his own. Because there
is a possibility that Garcia may be able to secure legal
assistance independently, the Motion for Appointment of
Counsel is denied by the court at this time. See
Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61.
Motions for Issuance of a Subpoena (Doc. Nos. 55,
has filed identical motions asking the court to issue a
subpoena directing the State of Connecticut Judicial
Marshal's Office at the New Britain Superior Court to
produce all documents related to his attempted suicide in a
holding cell at the New Britain courthouse on May 7, 2014. He
also seeks to have any costs associated with the service of
the subpoena waived. Garcia claims that the documents in the
possession of the Connecticut Judicial Marshal's Office
“are directly related to the incidents alleged, are
highly probative of the subject matter, [and] likely to be
admitted by the court in further proceedings.” Mot.
Subpoena (Doc. No. 55) at 2; (Doc. No. 56) at 1. As indicated
above, the defendants have moved for summary judgment. No
hearings are scheduled. Nor has the case been scheduled for
defendants have filed an objection to the second Motion for
Issuance of a Subpoena. See Objection re Mot. for
Subpoena (“Obj.”) (Doc. No. 60). They contend
that the motion should be denied because Garcia need not file
a formal motion seeking the approval of the court for the
issuance of a subpoena by the Clerk. The defendants also
object to the Motion because discovery closed in this case in
need not file a motion for the issuance of a subpoena, but
may simply submit a request to the Clerk to issue a subpoena
form. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(3). After the Clerk
receives a request from a party for a subpoena, he or she
must issue the “subpoena, signed but otherwise in
blank” to the requesting party. See id.
Because a party need not file a formal motion for a subpoena,
the Motions for Issuance of a Subpoena are denied.
court reminds Garcia, to the extent that Garcia seeks to
subpoena documents from the State of Connecticut Judicial
Marshal's Office at the New Britain Superior Court for
purposes of discovery, that discovery did in fact close on
July 11, 2017, pursuant to an Order issued during a status
conference held by United States Magistrate Judge Merriam on
July 10, 2017. See Order (Doc. No. 35). Thus, if
Garcia seeks to pursue the production of documents through
the service of a subpoena, he would need to move to reopen
discovery. His Motions include no basis for the court to
reopen discovery at this point in the litigation. Thus, the
court denies the request for waiver of costs associated with
serving any subpoena that Garcia might receive from the Clerk
reasons set forth above, the Motions for Issuance of a
Subpoena and for waiver of costs associated with serving the
subpoena are denied in all respects.
Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 41)
to Local Rule 5(e)3, the defendants seek to seal copies of
Garcia's medical and mental health records filed as
Attachment B to Exhibit 6 and Attachment C to Exhibit 7 in
support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants
state that Garcia's medical and mental health records
should be kept confidential in accordance with the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Garcia does not
oppose the ...