Johnson v. Stahl

D. Minnesota

Johnson v. Stahl

DecidedMay 28, 2024

Docket0:24-cv-01065

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Johnson v. Stahl, (mnd 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Paul Edward Johnson, Case No. 24-cv-1065 (ECT/DJF)

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

Kevin Stahl et al.,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Mr. Johnson’s Letter to the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35), in which he requests the appointment of counsel (id. at 2). The Court construes this request as a motion to appoint counsel and denies the motion for the reasons given below. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a matter of the Court’s discretion. McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997); Mosby v. Mabry, 697 F.2d 213, 214 (8th Cir. 1982). Factors to consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel include: “(1) the factual complexity of the issues; (2) the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts; (3) the existence of conflicting testimony; (4) the ability [of the] indigent person to present the claims; and (5) the complexity of the legal arguments.” Crozier v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist., 973 F.3d 882, 889 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing cases). Mr. Johnson argues that appointment of counsel would serve the interests of justice (ECF No. 35 at 2). Although the Court recognizes his desire for the appointment of counsel, it does not find that litigating this action will be factually or legal complex, or that Mr. Johnson lacks the ability to investigate the facts or present his arguments to the Court. Mr. Johnson’s relative lack of understanding of the legal system and lack of access to assistance are not, alone, sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel as these facts do not distinguish his case from the myriad other claims brought by pro se litigants. The Court denies Mr. Johnson’s motion on these grounds. SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster Dulce J. Foster United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Paul Edward Johnson, Case No. 24-cv-1065 (ECT/DJF)

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

Kevin Stahl et al.,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Mr. Johnson’s Letter to the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35), in which he requests the appointment of counsel (id. at 2). The Court construes this request as a motion to appoint counsel and denies the motion for the reasons given below. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a matter of the Court’s discretion. McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997); Mosby v. Mabry, 697 F.2d 213, 214 (8th Cir. 1982). Factors to consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel include: “(1) the factual complexity of the issues; (2) the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts; (3) the existence of conflicting testimony; (4) the ability [of the] indigent person to present the claims; and (5) the complexity of the legal arguments.” Crozier v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist., 973 F.3d 882, 889 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing cases). Mr. Johnson argues that appointment of counsel would serve the interests of justice (ECF No. 35 at 2). Although the Court recognizes his desire for the appointment of counsel, it does not find that litigating this action will be factually or legal complex, or that Mr. Johnson lacks the ability to investigate the facts or present his arguments to the Court. Mr. Johnson’s relative lack of understanding of the legal system and lack of access to assistance are not, alone, sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel as these facts do not distinguish his case from the myriad other claims brought by pro se litigants. The Court denies Mr. Johnson’s motion on these grounds. SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster Dulce J. Foster United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Stahl, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-stahl-mnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack