Randle v. Ramsey County

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Darien Randle,                        Case No. 23-cv-1491 (JWB/DJF)      

               Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                            ORDER                      

Ramsey County et al.,                                                    

              Defendant.                                                 



    This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  Plaintiff  Darien  Randle’s  Motion  for  Attorney 
Representation (ECF No. 2).  Mr. Randle is pro se and filed this motion with the assistance of 
another inmate using a check-the-box form provided by the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Illinois.  He does not provide any specific arguments for why the Court should 
appoint counsel, but noted he has mental disabilities and did not have law library access at the 
Kane County Jail in St. Charles, Illinois, where he was detained when he filed his Complaint (ECF 
No. 2).  In the time since, however, Mr. Randle was transported to the Hennepin County Jail (see 
ECF No. 15) and later released (see ECF No. 17).  The Court also referred Mr. Randle to the FBA 
Pro Se Project (see ECF No. 5).  The Court understands Mr. Randle has been receiving assistance 
from a volunteer attorney through that program.                           
    There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Ward v. Smith, 

 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a matter of the Court’s 
discretion. McCall v. Benson, 

 (8th Cir. 1997); Mosby v. Mabry, 

 
(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., 

 (8th Cir. 
2020) (citing cases).                                                     
    The Court recognizes Mr. Randle’s strong desire for appointment of counsel, but the Court 
cannot conclude that litigating this action will be factually or legally complex, or that Mr. Randle lacks 
the ability to investigate the facts or present his arguments to the Court.  Mr. Randle’s lack of 
understanding of the legal system, alone, is also not sufficient to warrant appointment of counsel since 
these facts do not distinguish his case from the myriad other claims brought by pro se litigants—

especially given that he has been receiving assistance from an attorney with the FBA Pro Se Project.  
Moreover, while conflicting testimony may emerge later on, this factor does not currently outweigh 
the others.  The Court therefore declines to appoint counsel at this time.1 

    Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Randle’s Motion for Attorney Representation (ECF No. [2]) 
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.                                              
 Dated: January 2, 2024          s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                 Dulce J. Foster                         
                                 United States Magistrate Judge          







    1 This Order denies Mr. Randle’s request for court-appointed counsel only.  Nothing in this 
Order is intended to affect the Court’s previous referral to the FBA Pro Se Project or any ongoing 
assistance he may be receiving from the volunteer attorney.               

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Darien Randle,                        Case No. 23-cv-1491 (JWB/DJF)      

               Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                            ORDER                      

Ramsey County et al.,                                                    

              Defendant.                                                 



    This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  Plaintiff  Darien  Randle’s  Motion  for  Attorney 
Representation (ECF No. 2).  Mr. Randle is pro se and filed this motion with the assistance of 
another inmate using a check-the-box form provided by the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Illinois.  He does not provide any specific arguments for why the Court should 
appoint counsel, but noted he has mental disabilities and did not have law library access at the 
Kane County Jail in St. Charles, Illinois, where he was detained when he filed his Complaint (ECF 
No. 2).  In the time since, however, Mr. Randle was transported to the Hennepin County Jail (see 
ECF No. 15) and later released (see ECF No. 17).  The Court also referred Mr. Randle to the FBA 
Pro Se Project (see ECF No. 5).  The Court understands Mr. Randle has been receiving assistance 
from a volunteer attorney through that program.                           
    There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Ward v. Smith, 

 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a matter of the Court’s 
discretion. McCall v. Benson, 

 (8th Cir. 1997); Mosby v. Mabry, 

 
(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., 

 (8th Cir. 
2020) (citing cases).                                                     
    The Court recognizes Mr. Randle’s strong desire for appointment of counsel, but the Court 
cannot conclude that litigating this action will be factually or legally complex, or that Mr. Randle lacks 
the ability to investigate the facts or present his arguments to the Court.  Mr. Randle’s lack of 
understanding of the legal system, alone, is also not sufficient to warrant appointment of counsel since 
these facts do not distinguish his case from the myriad other claims brought by pro se litigants—

especially given that he has been receiving assistance from an attorney with the FBA Pro Se Project.  
Moreover, while conflicting testimony may emerge later on, this factor does not currently outweigh 
the others.  The Court therefore declines to appoint counsel at this time.1 

    Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Randle’s Motion for Attorney Representation (ECF No. [2]) 
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.                                              
 Dated: January 2, 2024          s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                 Dulce J. Foster                         
                                 United States Magistrate Judge          







    1 This Order denies Mr. Randle’s request for court-appointed counsel only.  Nothing in this 
Order is intended to affect the Court’s previous referral to the FBA Pro Se Project or any ongoing 
assistance he may be receiving from the volunteer attorney.