Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 2 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs; denying 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Action required within 30 days. See order for details. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 12/1/2022. (MEH)

CASE 0:13-cv-01074-JRT-DJF Doc. 32 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Hollis J. Larson,

Case No. 13-cv-1074 (JRT/DJF)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
The Minnesota Sex Offender Program, et al.,
Defendants.

On October 20, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff Hollis J. Larson, a client of the Minnesota
Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”), leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 29.) In the same
Order, the Court deferred ruling on Mr. Larson’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 20) until
after his deadline to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 29.)
Mr. Larson timely filed an amended complaint on November 10, 2022 (“Amended
Complaint”) (ECF No. 30). Upon review of Mr. Larson’s Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court concludes that he has alleged a colorable basis for relief. Accordingly,
the Court grants Mr. Larson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) and
directs that service of process be effected consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The fact that the
Court grants Mr. Larson’s IFP application, however, does not preclude Defendants from raising
any argument regarding the adequacy of his pleading.
The Court now also addresses Mr. Larson’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 20). 1
“A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.”

1

Mr. Larson’s Amended Complaint also includes additional argument regarding why the
Court should appoint counsel in this matter, discussed below. (See ECF No. 30 at 48-49.)

1

CASE 0:13-cv-01074-JRT-DJF Doc. 32 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 4

Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). “When determining whether to appoint
counsel for an indigent civil litigant, the district court considers relevant factors such as the
complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of
conflicting testimony, and the ability of the indigent to present his claim.” Id.
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that Mr. Larson is a very frequent and experienced
litigator in this District. Although the Court has no reason to disbelieve Mr. Larson’s account that
medical problems interfere with his ability to concentrate and focus, this has not hindered Mr.
Larson from actively and fully participating in his prior lawsuits, including recently. Indeed, Mr.
Larson’s motion for appointment of counsel and supporting memorandum (ECF No. 22), which
are well-argued and replete with relevant citations, bely his argument that he is incapable of
prosecuting this matter without assistance from an attorney. Mr. Larson has proven himself better
able to argue on his own behalf than the typical unrepresented litigant.
Mr. Larson counters that although he has brought many lawsuits in the past, his history as
a litigator, if anything, demonstrates that assistance of counsel is necessary, since his lawsuits have
never been successful. (See ECF No. 30 at 48-49.) But dismissal alone does not mean that Mr.
Larson has proven incapable of presenting his claims for relief. A case may be litigated by the
most experienced counsel available and yet subject to dismissal on the merits. And if anything,
Mr. Larson causes himself problems in his lawsuits by litigating too much—filing too many
complaints and raising too many claims against too many defendants, thus burying any wheat
beneath a pile of chaff.

See Larson v. Bogenholm, No. 19-CV-2811 (WMW/DTS), 2020

WL 7364440, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 9, 2020); Larson v. Goodman, No. 09-CV-3600 (PAM/AJB),
2010 WL 4568042, at *10 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2010) (noting that Mr. Larson’s pleading
“thoroughly succeeds in its ability to harass Defendants with what are nothing more than frivolous

2

CASE 0:13-cv-01074-JRT-DJF Doc. 32 Filed 12/01/22 Page 3 of 4

claims.”). This is not a problem that appointment of counsel would likely fix to Mr. Larson’s
satisfaction.
The ability of the unrepresented party to present his or her claims is only one the factors
taken into account when considering whether appointment of counsel is necessary. The Court also
considers the complexity of the case, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the litigant’s
ability to investigate. See Stevens, 146 F.3d at 546. None of these other factors necessitates
appointment. Mr. Larson’s Amended Complaint is long, but his claims are not complex. No
testimony has been developed. And each of the events at issue occurred within the MSOP, such
that procuring discovery materials—if necessary—should not prove unduly difficult for Larson.
The Court therefore denies his motion to appoint counsel.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff Hollis J. Larson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis of (ECF
No. [2]) is GRANTED.

2.

Mr. Larson must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM285) for each Defendant. If Mr. Larson does not complete and return the Marshal
Service Forms within 30 days of this order, the Court will recommend that this
matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court will
provide Marshal Service Forms to Mr. Larson.

3.

Upon 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.

3

CASE 0:13-cv-01074-JRT-DJF Doc. 32 Filed 12/01/22 Page 4 of 4

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.

The U.S. Marshals Service is directed to effect service of process on each of the
Defendants in their official capacities as agents of the State of Minnesota consistent
with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6.

Mr. Larson’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.

Dated: December 1, 2022

s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge

4