Franzky v. South Dakota Human Services Center

D. South Dakota

Franzky v. South Dakota Human Services Center

DecidedMarch 30, 2021

Docket4:21-cv-04013

StatusUnknown

This text of Franzky v. South Dakota Human Services Center (Franzky v. South Dakota Human Services Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franzky v. South Dakota Human Services Center, (D.S.D. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

COLLIN PETER FRANZKY, 4:21-CV-04013-RAL . Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF Vs. TIME TO RESPOND BUT DENYING MOTIN TO APPOINT COUNSEL SOUTH DAKOTA HUMAN SERVICES CENTER, JEREMY JOHNSON ADMINISTRATOR, Defendant.

Plaintiff Collin Peter Franzky (Franzky) filed a § 1983 complaint pro se against Defendant South Dakota Human Services Center (SDHSC), Doc. 1, and paid the $402.00 filing fee. SDHSC filed a motion to dismiss, Doc. 8, and supporting memorandum, Docs. 9, 10. Franzky then filed ‘

three motions: 1) a motion to extend time to respond, Doc. 11; 2) a motion seeking appointment of counsel, Doc. 12; and 3) an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 13. SDHSC filed its motion to dismiss on March 4, so under Local Rules, Franzky would have until March 25 to respond. Franzky is proceeding pro se and this Court sees no prejudice to SDHSC to grant Franzky additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss. Franzky paid the filing fee, so his motion for IFP status likely is related to his motion for appointment of counsel. “A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). In determining whether to appoint counsel to a pro se litigant, the court considers the complexity of the case, the ability of the litigant to

investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the litigant’s ability to present his claim. Id. The facts of Franzky’s claims do not appear to be particularly complex, he appears to already know most of the facts necessary to prosecute his case, and his complaint sets forth his claims. This Court denies Franzky’s request for counsel. His motion to proceed IFP is denied without prejudice to refiling if he seeks waiver of some future fee or court cost. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Franzky’s motion to extend time to respond, Doc. 11, is granted and Franzky has until April 26, 2021, to respond to the motion to dismiss. It is further ORDERED that Franzky’s motion to appoint counsel, Doc. 12, and motion to proceed IFP, Doc. 13, are denied without prejudice to later refiling if circumstances in this case change.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2021. BY THE COURT: Seti (d erg CHIEF JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

COLLIN PETER FRANZKY, 4:21-CV-04013-RAL . Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF Vs. TIME TO RESPOND BUT DENYING MOTIN TO APPOINT COUNSEL SOUTH DAKOTA HUMAN SERVICES CENTER, JEREMY JOHNSON ADMINISTRATOR, Defendant.

Plaintiff Collin Peter Franzky (Franzky) filed a § 1983 complaint pro se against Defendant South Dakota Human Services Center (SDHSC), Doc. 1, and paid the $402.00 filing fee. SDHSC filed a motion to dismiss, Doc. 8, and supporting memorandum, Docs. 9, 10. Franzky then filed ‘

three motions: 1) a motion to extend time to respond, Doc. 11; 2) a motion seeking appointment of counsel, Doc. 12; and 3) an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 13. SDHSC filed its motion to dismiss on March 4, so under Local Rules, Franzky would have until March 25 to respond. Franzky is proceeding pro se and this Court sees no prejudice to SDHSC to grant Franzky additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss. Franzky paid the filing fee, so his motion for IFP status likely is related to his motion for appointment of counsel. “A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). In determining whether to appoint counsel to a pro se litigant, the court considers the complexity of the case, the ability of the litigant to

investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the litigant’s ability to present his claim. Id. The facts of Franzky’s claims do not appear to be particularly complex, he appears to already know most of the facts necessary to prosecute his case, and his complaint sets forth his claims. This Court denies Franzky’s request for counsel. His motion to proceed IFP is denied without prejudice to refiling if he seeks waiver of some future fee or court cost. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Franzky’s motion to extend time to respond, Doc. 11, is granted and Franzky has until April 26, 2021, to respond to the motion to dismiss. It is further ORDERED that Franzky’s motion to appoint counsel, Doc. 12, and motion to proceed IFP, Doc. 13, are denied without prejudice to later refiling if circumstances in this case change.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2021. BY THE COURT: Seti (d erg CHIEF JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Franzky v. South Dakota Human Services Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franzky-v-south-dakota-human-services-center-sdd-2021.