Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Hollis J. Larson,
Case No. 23-cv-1823 (JRT/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services et ORDER
al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Hollis Larson’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (“Motion to Appoint”) (ECF No. 88). He argues that the Court should appoint counsel for
him because he is unable to afford counsel, he has limited resources to conduct legal research and
fact discovery given his status as a civilly committed detainee, and he suffers from mental
disabilities that would make representing himself in this matter difficult. (See id.; ECF No. 89.) Mr.
Larson previously filed an identical motion for appointment of counsel (see ECF Nos. 80, 81), which
the Court denied (ECF No. 83). For the reasons given below, the Court again denies the Motion to
Appoint but will refer Mr. Larson to the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar
Association for possible assistance.
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).
Although the Court recognizes Mr. Larson’s concerns with the discovery process and
possible dispositive motion practice, it does not conclude that appointment of counsel is necessary.
Neither the factual nor legal issues are particularly complex. Moreover, the Court does not find that
Mr. Larson lacks the ability to present his arguments to the Court. In fact, he has demonstrated an
ability to litigate his case effectively as some of his claims have survived Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. (See ECF No. 87.) His lack of access to assistance is not sufficient to warrant the
appointment of counsel, as his situation does not distinguish his case from the myriad of other claims
brought by pro se litigants. Finally, while the Court appreciates Mr. Larson’s concern that his
detention will make taking depositions more cumbersome, the Court notes that the Rules explicitly
provide for written depositions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, and that the use of video platforms for oral
depositions is now quite common. The challenges Mr. Larson identifies are not insurmountable.
Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Larson’s motion for the appointment of counsel.
However, the Court concludes volunteer legal assistance would be helpful in the discovery
process and will refer Mr. Larson to the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se
Project. His participation in this program is voluntary. If he elects to participate, he might be able to
talk about his case with a volunteer attorney who would consult with him about this case without
charging him for the consultation. The Court will provide this referral to Mr. Larson, along with
additional details about the Pro Se Project, in a separate letter.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Hollis J. Larson,
Case No. 23-cv-1823 (JRT/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services et ORDER
al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Hollis Larson’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (“Motion to Appoint”) (ECF No. 88). He argues that the Court should appoint counsel for
him because he is unable to afford counsel, he has limited resources to conduct legal research and
fact discovery given his status as a civilly committed detainee, and he suffers from mental
disabilities that would make representing himself in this matter difficult. (See id.; ECF No. 89.) Mr.
Larson previously filed an identical motion for appointment of counsel (see ECF Nos. 80, 81), which
the Court denied (ECF No. 83). For the reasons given below, the Court again denies the Motion to
Appoint but will refer Mr. Larson to the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar
Association for possible assistance.
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).
Although the Court recognizes Mr. Larson’s concerns with the discovery process and
possible dispositive motion practice, it does not conclude that appointment of counsel is necessary.
Neither the factual nor legal issues are particularly complex. Moreover, the Court does not find that
Mr. Larson lacks the ability to present his arguments to the Court. In fact, he has demonstrated an
ability to litigate his case effectively as some of his claims have survived Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. (See ECF No. 87.) His lack of access to assistance is not sufficient to warrant the
appointment of counsel, as his situation does not distinguish his case from the myriad of other claims
brought by pro se litigants. Finally, while the Court appreciates Mr. Larson’s concern that his
detention will make taking depositions more cumbersome, the Court notes that the Rules explicitly
provide for written depositions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, and that the use of video platforms for oral
depositions is now quite common. The challenges Mr. Larson identifies are not insurmountable.
Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Larson’s motion for the appointment of counsel.
However, the Court concludes volunteer legal assistance would be helpful in the discovery
process and will refer Mr. Larson to the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se
Project. His participation in this program is voluntary. If he elects to participate, he might be able to
talk about his case with a volunteer attorney who would consult with him about this case without
charging him for the consultation. The Court will provide this referral to Mr. Larson, along with
additional details about the Pro Se Project, in a separate letter.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown