Krych v. DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client Placement Committee members and participants
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Krych v. DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client Placement Committee members and participants
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Chris Krych, Case No. 11-cv-3091 (JRT/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client
Placement Committee members and
participants et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Chris Krych’s request for the appointment of
counsel in his Letter to the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 133). Mr. Krych alleges in his letter that
Defendants’ counsel is refusing to comply with his discovery requests and has been subjecting him
to harassment. For the reasons given below, the Court denies Mr. Krych’s request for the
appointment of counsel but will refer him 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. Krych’s frustration with the discovery process and his
desire for counsel, it does not find that litigating this action will be factually or legal complex, or
that Mr. Krych lacks the ability to investigate the facts or present his arguments to the Court. Mr.
Krych’s relative lack of understanding of the legal system and lack of access to assistance are also
not sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel, as these facts do not distinguish his case from
the myriad other claims brought by pro se litigants. The Court denies Mr. Krych’s request for the
appointment of counsel on these grounds.
However, the Court will refer Mr. Krych 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. Krych, along with additional details about the Pro Se Project, in a separate letter.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Chris Krych, Case No. 11-cv-3091 (JRT/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client
Placement Committee members and
participants et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Chris Krych’s request for the appointment of
counsel in his Letter to the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 133). Mr. Krych alleges in his letter that
Defendants’ counsel is refusing to comply with his discovery requests and has been subjecting him
to harassment. For the reasons given below, the Court denies Mr. Krych’s request for the
appointment of counsel but will refer him 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. Krych’s frustration with the discovery process and his
desire for counsel, it does not find that litigating this action will be factually or legal complex, or
that Mr. Krych lacks the ability to investigate the facts or present his arguments to the Court. Mr.
Krych’s relative lack of understanding of the legal system and lack of access to assistance are also
not sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel, as these facts do not distinguish his case from
the myriad other claims brought by pro se litigants. The Court denies Mr. Krych’s request for the
appointment of counsel on these grounds.
However, the Court will refer Mr. Krych 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. Krych, along with additional details about the Pro Se Project, in a separate letter.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown