United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER
Tony
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff
Joseph Anthony Favors, a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program (“MSOP”), has filed suit against several
individuals alleging violations of both federal and state
law. Favors has filed a letter requesting that the Court
appoint “through the Pro Se Project an Advisory Council
to assist [Favors] in this case.” (ECF No. 33). The
Court will deny that request.
“In
civil cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to
appointed counsel.” Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d
940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); accord Phillips v.
Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006)
(same). Instead, “[t]he court may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (emphasis added).
“The relevant criteria for determining whether counsel
should be appointed include the factual complexity of the
issues, the ability of the indigent person to investigate the
facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of
the indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity
of the legal arguments.” Phillips, 437 F.3d at
794; accord Ward, 721 F.3d at 942. “The court
has a good deal of discretion to determine whether
representation is warranted given the nature of the case and
the litigants.” Chambers v. Pennycook, 641
F.3d 898, 909 (8th Cir. 2011); see Trotter v.
Lawson, 636 Fed.Appx. 371, 373 (8th Cir. 2016) (per
curiam).
Favors
states that he “has no experience whatsoever with any
federal or state case, especially huge like this one.”
(ECF No. 33, p. 2). He describes himself as “a blind
man in a fist fight, just guessing what laws apply, what to
file, where to get it, and have the time to do it.”
(Id.). He further notes that all the defendants in
this case have the benefit of counsel. (Id.).
Favors's
filings to date demonstrate his ability to articulate his
position to the Court and a basic understanding of legal
procedure, including filing motions as a means of seeking
relief from the Court. See Ward, 721 F.3d at 943. He
has filed more than 10 cases pro se since 2010.[1] The Complaint is
over 60 pages long. It refers to specific state and federal
statutes, state and federal constitutional provisions, and
state administrative rules. These documents also include
citations to and a discussion of a multitude of legal
authorities. Favors's history of pro se litigation and
the extensive Complaint filed in this case demonstrate that
his access to the Court is not impeded. Moreover, the factual
and legal issues underlying this litigation do not appear any
more complex than other civil-rights matters routinely
brought before this Court.
In
addition, as the Court previously explained to Favors,
see Favors v. Johnson, et al., 19-cv-32 (ECF No. 7),
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently considered
whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a
prisoner's request for appointment of counsel in a
Section 1983 action. In Patterson v. Kelley, 902
F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2018), a prisoner argued that counsel
should have been appointed because: (1) “as an inmate,
he was unable to interview witnesses and secure relevant
information”; (2) “his inartfully worded
interrogatories allowed defendants to give evasive
answers”; and (3) “‘this [wa]s complex
litigation' requiring the assistance of counsel because
the case involve[d] administrative regulations and government
funding issues.” Patterson, 902 F.3d at 850.
The
Eighth Circuit held that “[n]one of these grounds are
sufficient to show an abuse of discretion” by the
district court. Id. The Eighth Circuit also observed
that, “given that most indigent prisoners will face
similar challenges in bringing § 1983 claims, a finding
that the district court abused its discretion on these bases
would be tantamount to recognizing a right to appointed
counsel for indigent prisoners in such cases. This we refuse
to do.” Id. Though Favors is not a prisoner,
the Eighth Circuit's reasoning is persuasive here. For
all the reasons stated above, the Court will deny
Favors's request for appointment of advisory counsel
through the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the
Federal Bar Association.
III.
ORDER
Based
on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1.
Favors's request for appointment of advisory counsel
through the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the
Federal Bar Association (ECF No. 33) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJDUICE.
2. The
Clerk of Court shall provide Favors with a copy of the
Court's Pro Se Civil Guidebook, a resource for litigants
like Favors who are representing themselves.
---------
Notes:
[1]
Favors v. Ludeman et al., No.
10-cv-3747 (JRT/LIB) (filed August 25, 2010); Favors v.
Fabian et al., No. 12-cv-2634 (JRT/LIB) (filed October
15, 2012); Favors v. Jesson et al., No. 13-cv-108
(JRT/LIB) (filed January 10, 2013); Favors v. Hoover et
al., No. 13-cv-428 (JRT/LIB) (filed February 21, 2013);
Favors v. Jesson, No. 14-cv-3473 (JRT/LIB) (filed
September 17, 2014); Favors v. Seavey et al., No.
14-cv-3518 (JRT/LIB) (filed September 18, 2014); Favors
v. Jesson et al., No. 15-cv-2853 (JRT/LIB) (filed June
29, 2015); Favors v. Jesson, No. 15-cv-3010
(JRT/LIB) (filed July 8, 2015); Favors v. Chase Bank et
al., No. 18-cv-3187 (JNE/LIB) (filed November 15, 2018);
Favors et al. v. Piper et al., No. 18-cv-3282
(JRT/SER) (filed November 29, 2018); Favors v. Chase
Bank, No. 18-cv-3303 (JNE/LIB) (filed November 30,
2018); Favors v. Johnson, et al., No. 19-cv-32
(PJS/TNL) (filed January ...