USA v. GOGUEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) 1:11-cr-00003-JAW
)
ROBERT GOGUEN )
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
On February 21, 2018, Robert Goguen moved this Court to pay certain
expenses that he has incurred in proceeding with his various legal matters. Def.’s
Mot. for Funds (ECF No. 209). The expenses include cost of mailings, copying
expenses, and bills for telephone calls. Id. On February 23, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge denied his motion. Order (ECF No. 211). On March 20, 2018, Mr. Goguen
objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. Def.’s Objection to Order Denying Mot. for
Funds (ECF No. 219).
The standard by which this Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s Order is
whether the order is “contrary to law or clearly erroneous.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(A);
FED. R. CIV. P. 72 (a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Magistrate Judge’s February 23,
2018 order is neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous.
Mr. Goguen’s motion is premised on an understandable misconception: that
the Court has the legal authority to pay his legal expenses. The Court’s authority is
constrained by Congress and, although he stresses his need for the funds, he provides
no legal basis for the Court to order payment. Instead, Mr. Goguen’s request is an
equitable one; he seeks the funds because he needs the money and he emphasizes
Case 1:11-cr-00003-JAW Document 224 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
that it “is not an unfair request.” Def.’s Objection at 1. But Mr. Goguen cites no legal
authority that would allow the Court to grant his request and the Court is aware of
none.
To be clear, the Court does not doubt that Mr. Goguen, like many incarcerated
persons, finds it difficult to gain access to funds to pay for legal costs. However,
Congress has simply not authorized the Court to require itself or to require the
Government generally to pay these expenses. As such, the Court must overrule Mr.
Goguen’s objection and affirm the Magistrate Judge’s order.
The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objection to Order Denying Motion for
Funds (ECF No. 219) and it AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 211).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of April, 2018
Case 1:11-cr-00003-JAW Document 224 Filed 04/04/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>