Hollis Larson v. David Crist

Eighth Circuit

Hollis Larson v. David Crist

223 F. App'x 536

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 2007

Docket06-2725

StatusUnpublished

This text of 223 F. App'x 536 (Hollis Larson v. David Crist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hollis Larson v. David Crist, 223 F. App'x 536 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Hollis Larson appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming a magistrate judge’s order denying appointment of counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to affirm the denial of appointed counsel, because the magistrate judge’s order reflects consideration of the appropriate factors. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; there is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases). We thus affirm the denial of counsel, but because some of the relevant factors may need to be reconsidered as Larson’s case progresses, we amend the order to be without prejudice. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 476 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting in part the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Hollis Larson appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming a magistrate judge’s order denying appointment of counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to affirm the denial of appointed counsel, because the magistrate judge’s order reflects consideration of the appropriate factors. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; there is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases). We thus affirm the denial of counsel, but because some of the relevant factors may need to be reconsidered as Larson’s case progresses, we amend the order to be without prejudice. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 476 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting in part the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 F. App'x 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollis-larson-v-david-crist-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack