Johnson v. Stahl

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota October 28, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                 DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Paul Edward Johnson,                                                      
                                 Case No. 23-cv-1065 (ECT/DJF)       
          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                                                                        

Kevin Stahl, et al.,                          ORDER                       

          Defendants.                                                


This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Paul Edward Johnson’s Motion for Appointment 
of Counsel (“Motion to Appoint”) (ECF No. 51).  He argues that the Court should appoint counsel 
for him because he does not have the ability or training required to draft and file an amended 
complaint.  (See id.)  Mr. Johnson previously filed a letter (ECF No. 35) that the Court construed as a 
motion to appoint counsel and denied (see ECF No. 39).  For the reasons given below, the Court 
again denies the Motion to Appoint but will refer Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson’s concerns about his lack of legal training, it
does not conclude that appointment of counsel is necessary. Neither the factual nor legal issues are
particularly complex. Nor does Mr. Johnson lack the ability to investigate the facts or present his
arguments to the Court. In accordance with the proper procedures, Plaintiff simply needs to amend
his complaint with greater factual specificity; in other words, he needs to provide information that he

should already have. (See ECF No. 50.) The Court finds that 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. The challenges Mr. Johnson identifies are not
insurmountable. Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Johnson’s motion for the appointment of counsel.
However, the Court concludes volunteer legal assistance would be helpful in providing some
guidance to Mr. Johnson and will refer him 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. Johnson, along with additional details about the Pro Se Project, in a separate letter.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge