LaLiberte v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
LaLiberte v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Charles A. LaLiberte, Civ. No. 24-463 (JWB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Charles LaLiberte has requested court appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 25.)
Although there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases,
Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942(8th Cir. 2013), the court may request an attorney for any person who cannot afford one. See28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(1). Whether to request counsel depends on the factual complexity of the issues, Plaintiff’s ability to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments. Ward,721 F.3d at 942
.
Plaintiff has filed his own Complaint and other initial filings. He has filed a
motion to certify a legal question to the Minnesota Supreme Court. And he must file a
response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is set for a hearing on
July 30, 2024. Plaintiff’s filings show that although he can write out his thoughts, the
legal issues presented are sufficiently complex that the parties and the Court would
benefit from having Plaintiff discuss the matter with counsel. Plaintiff’s request for
counsel will be granted to the extent that he will be referred to the Pro Se Project for
possible consultation with a volunteer attorney.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for counsel
(Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART. A letter referring Plaintiff to the Pro Se Project
will be issued separately. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss is extended to July 9, 2024.
Date: May 20, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Charles A. LaLiberte, Civ. No. 24-463 (JWB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Charles LaLiberte has requested court appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 25.)
Although there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases,
Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942(8th Cir. 2013), the court may request an attorney for any person who cannot afford one. See28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(1). Whether to request counsel depends on the factual complexity of the issues, Plaintiff’s ability to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments. Ward,721 F.3d at 942
.
Plaintiff has filed his own Complaint and other initial filings. He has filed a
motion to certify a legal question to the Minnesota Supreme Court. And he must file a
response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is set for a hearing on
July 30, 2024. Plaintiff’s filings show that although he can write out his thoughts, the
legal issues presented are sufficiently complex that the parties and the Court would
benefit from having Plaintiff discuss the matter with counsel. Plaintiff’s request for
counsel will be granted to the extent that he will be referred to the Pro Se Project for
possible consultation with a volunteer attorney.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for counsel
(Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART. A letter referring Plaintiff to the Pro Se Project
will be issued separately. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss is extended to July 9, 2024.
Date: May 20, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown