UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Stephan Nicholas Holmes,             Case No. 23-cv-2969 (PJS/DJF)      

           Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

MN DOC, et al.,                                                         

           Defendants.                                               


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                           
1.   The application to proceed in forma pauperis of Stephan Nicholas Holmes (ECF 
     No. [3]) is GRANTED.                                            
2.   Mr. Holmes must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM-
     285) for each defendant.  If Mr. Holmes does not complete and return the 
     Marshal  Service  Forms  on  or  before  February  1,  2024,  the  Court  may 
     recommend dismissal of this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  
     The Court will provide Marshal Service Forms to Mr. Holmes.     
3.   After the return of the completed Marshal Service Forms, the Clerk of Court is 
     directed to seek waiver of service from each of the defendants in their personal 
     capacities, consistent with Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
4.   If a defendant sued in his or her personal capacity fails without good cause to sign 
     and return a waiver within 30 days of the date that the waiver is mailed, the Court 
     will impose upon that defendant the expenses later incurred in effecting service of 
     process.  Absent a showing of good cause, reimbursement of the costs of service is 
  mandatory and will be imposed in all cases in which a defendant does not sign and 
  return a waiver of service form.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).  
5.   Mr. Holmes must pay the unpaid balance ($298.18) of the statutory filing fee for 
  this action in the manner prescribed by 

(b)(2), and the Clerk of 

  Court shall provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution 
  where Mr. Holmes is confined.                                   
6.   Notwithstanding the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g), each individual-capacity 
  defendant upon whom service of process is properly effected or who waives service 
  of process is required to file an answer or other responsive pleading within the time 
  limits established by Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   
7.   The official-capacity defendants, for whom service of process has already been 
  effected,  must  file  an  answer  or  other  responsive  pleading  on  or  before 
  January 23, 2024.  The official-capacity defendants may reasonably request an 
  extension of the answer deadline to comport with the date on which the individual-

  capacity defendants must answer the complaint if those defendants intend to submit 
  a joint response to the complaint.                              
8.   Mr. Holmes’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. [27]) is DENIED.  “A 
  pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in 
  a civil case.”  Stevens v. Redwing, 

, 546 (8th Cir. 1998); see also In re 
  Lane, 

 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The decision to appoint counsel in 
  civil cases is committed to the discretion of the district court.”).  It is not yet 
  apparent  that  appointment  of  counsel  would  benefit  either  plaintiff  or  the 
  Court.  Mr. Holmes has presented his claims with reasonable clarity, and the Court 
     cannot know at this early stage of the litigation whether either the factual or legal 
     basis for those claims will prove so complex that an unrepresented litigant could 
     not  prosecute  those  claims  on  his  own  behalf.   The  Court  will  reconsider 
     appointment of counsel sua sponte if circumstances change and it appears such an 

     appointment would be appropriate.                               
Dated: January 2, 2024          s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                             Dulce J. Foster                         
                             United States Magistrate Judge          

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Stephan Nicholas Holmes,             Case No. 23-cv-2969 (PJS/DJF)      

           Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

MN DOC, et al.,                                                         

           Defendants.                                               


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                           
1.   The application to proceed in forma pauperis of Stephan Nicholas Holmes (ECF 
     No. [3]) is GRANTED.                                            
2.   Mr. Holmes must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM-
     285) for each defendant.  If Mr. Holmes does not complete and return the 
     Marshal  Service  Forms  on  or  before  February  1,  2024,  the  Court  may 
     recommend dismissal of this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  
     The Court will provide Marshal Service Forms to Mr. Holmes.     
3.   After the return of the completed Marshal Service Forms, the Clerk of Court is 
     directed to seek waiver of service from each of the defendants in their personal 
     capacities, consistent with Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
4.   If a defendant sued in his or her personal capacity fails without good cause to sign 
     and return a waiver within 30 days of the date that the waiver is mailed, the Court 
     will impose upon that defendant the expenses later incurred in effecting service of 
     process.  Absent a showing of good cause, reimbursement of the costs of service is 
  mandatory and will be imposed in all cases in which a defendant does not sign and 
  return a waiver of service form.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).  
5.   Mr. Holmes must pay the unpaid balance ($298.18) of the statutory filing fee for 
  this action in the manner prescribed by 

(b)(2), and the Clerk of 

  Court shall provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution 
  where Mr. Holmes is confined.                                   
6.   Notwithstanding the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g), each individual-capacity 
  defendant upon whom service of process is properly effected or who waives service 
  of process is required to file an answer or other responsive pleading within the time 
  limits established by Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   
7.   The official-capacity defendants, for whom service of process has already been 
  effected,  must  file  an  answer  or  other  responsive  pleading  on  or  before 
  January 23, 2024.  The official-capacity defendants may reasonably request an 
  extension of the answer deadline to comport with the date on which the individual-

  capacity defendants must answer the complaint if those defendants intend to submit 
  a joint response to the complaint.                              
8.   Mr. Holmes’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. [27]) is DENIED.  “A 
  pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in 
  a civil case.”  Stevens v. Redwing, 

, 546 (8th Cir. 1998); see also In re 
  Lane, 

 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The decision to appoint counsel in 
  civil cases is committed to the discretion of the district court.”).  It is not yet 
  apparent  that  appointment  of  counsel  would  benefit  either  plaintiff  or  the 
  Court.  Mr. Holmes has presented his claims with reasonable clarity, and the Court 
     cannot know at this early stage of the litigation whether either the factual or legal 
     basis for those claims will prove so complex that an unrepresented litigant could 
     not  prosecute  those  claims  on  his  own  behalf.   The  Court  will  reconsider 
     appointment of counsel sua sponte if circumstances change and it appears such an 

     appointment would be appropriate.                               
Dated: January 2, 2024          s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                             Dulce J. Foster                         
                             United States Magistrate Judge