Jones v. Ramsey County Jail

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Jones v. Ramsey County Jail

Trial Court Opinion

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Rafpheal Jones,                      Case No. 24-cv-20 (JRT/DJF)        

           Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

Ramsey County Jail and Officer Tony,                                    

           Defendants.                                               


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                           
1.   Plaintiff Rafpheal Jones’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. [3]) 
     is GRANTED.                                                     
2.   Mr. Jones must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM-
     285) for each defendant.  If Mr. Jones does not complete and return the Marshal 
     Service Forms by March 28, 2024, the Court will recommend that this matter be 
     dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  The Court will provide 
     Marshal Service Forms to Mr. Jones.                             
3.   The  Court  directs  the  U.S.  Marshals  Service  to  effect  service  of  process  on 
     Defendant Ramsey County Jail consistent with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure.                                                
4.   Mr. Jones must also submit a one-page addendum specifying whether the defendant 
     identified as “Officer Tony” is being sued in that defendant’s individual capacity, 
     in that defendant’s official capacity as an agent of Ramsey County, or in both 
     capacities.  If suing “Officer Tony” in his individual capacity, Mr. Jones must 
  submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM-285) for that 
  defendant.  Mr. Jones must submit the one-page addendum and Marshal Service 
  Form, if necessary, by March 28, 2024, failing which the Court may recommend 
  that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

5.   Mr. Jones must pay the unpaid balance ($350.00) of the statutory filing fee for this 
  action in the manner prescribed by 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2), and the Clerk of Court 
  shall provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where 
  Mr. Jones is confined.  Because Mr. Jones has no assets and no means from which 
  to pay an initial partial filing fee, the Court waives that requirement.  See 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(4).                                                   
6.   Mr.  Jones’s  motion  for  appointment  of  counsel  (ECF  No.  [2])  is  DENIED 
  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  “A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional 
  right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.”  Stevens v. Redwing, 
146 F.3d 538
, 
  546 (8th Cir. 1998); see also In re Lane, 
801 F.2d 1040, 1042
 (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 Mr. Jones or the Court.  Mr. Jones has presented his claims in his Amended 
  Complaint (ECF No.[ 6]) 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 sua sponte (on its own motion) 
  whether appointment of counsel is appropriate should circumstances dictate. 
Dated: February 27, 2024        s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                             DULCE J. FOSTER                         
                             United States Magistrate Judge          

Trial Court Opinion

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Rafpheal Jones,                      Case No. 24-cv-20 (JRT/DJF)        

           Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

Ramsey County Jail and Officer Tony,                                    

           Defendants.                                               


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                           
1.   Plaintiff Rafpheal Jones’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. [3]) 
     is GRANTED.                                                     
2.   Mr. Jones must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM-
     285) for each defendant.  If Mr. Jones does not complete and return the Marshal 
     Service Forms by March 28, 2024, the Court will recommend that this matter be 
     dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  The Court will provide 
     Marshal Service Forms to Mr. Jones.                             
3.   The  Court  directs  the  U.S.  Marshals  Service  to  effect  service  of  process  on 
     Defendant Ramsey County Jail consistent with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure.                                                
4.   Mr. Jones must also submit a one-page addendum specifying whether the defendant 
     identified as “Officer Tony” is being sued in that defendant’s individual capacity, 
     in that defendant’s official capacity as an agent of Ramsey County, or in both 
     capacities.  If suing “Officer Tony” in his individual capacity, Mr. Jones must 
  submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM-285) for that 
  defendant.  Mr. Jones must submit the one-page addendum and Marshal Service 
  Form, if necessary, by March 28, 2024, failing which the Court may recommend 
  that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

5.   Mr. Jones must pay the unpaid balance ($350.00) of the statutory filing fee for this 
  action in the manner prescribed by 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2), and the Clerk of Court 
  shall provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where 
  Mr. Jones is confined.  Because Mr. Jones has no assets and no means from which 
  to pay an initial partial filing fee, the Court waives that requirement.  See 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(4).                                                   
6.   Mr.  Jones’s  motion  for  appointment  of  counsel  (ECF  No.  [2])  is  DENIED 
  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  “A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional 
  right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.”  Stevens v. Redwing, 
146 F.3d 538
, 
  546 (8th Cir. 1998); see also In re Lane, 
801 F.2d 1040, 1042
 (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 Mr. Jones or the Court.  Mr. Jones has presented his claims in his Amended 
  Complaint (ECF No.[ 6]) 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 sua sponte (on its own motion) 
  whether appointment of counsel is appropriate should circumstances dictate. 
Dated: February 27, 2024        s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                             DULCE J. FOSTER                         
                             United States Magistrate Judge          

Reference

Status
Unknown