Larson et al v. Lake et al

Filing 70

ORDER denying 63 Letter to District Judge, 64 Letter to District Judge.(Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 6/4/2018. (BJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
GUY I. GREENE,

Case No. 0:17-cv-3551-SRN-KMM
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER

KELLY LAKE; PAUL COUGHLIN,
BRIAN BELICH, DAVE KAMUNEN;
JASON WILMES; CAMMI WERNER;
TRAVIS WARNYGORA; JOHN
DOES, an unknown number; JANE
DOES, an unknown number; and TOM
ROY;
Defendants.

On May 11, 2018, the plaintiff, Guy Greene, filed two letters asking the Court
to either enter an order appointing counsel to represent him or compelling the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”) at Moose Lake, where he is confined, to
allow Mr. Greene to purchase his own laptop computer with internet access so he can
conduct legal research. [ECF Nos. 63–64.] Mr. Greene alleges that the conditions of
the law library and other legal research resources at the MSOP facility place him on an
uneven playing field with the defendants. [Id.] On May 29, 2018, as ordered by the
Court, the Defendants’ filed concise letter briefs in which they argue that
Mr. Greene’s requests should be denied. [ECF Nos. 68–69.]
The Court denies Mr. Greene’s request for appointment of counsel without
prejudice at this time. Indigent litigants, like Mr. Greene, do not have a constitutional
or statutory right to counsel in civil cases, but such an appointment is within the
discretion of the trial court. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). “The
relevant criteria for determining whether counsel should be appointed include the
1

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 v. Jasper County
Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). If the motion for counsel is
brought early in the proceeding, there may be “no conflicting testimony” and no
indication in the record that plaintiff is “unable to investigate or present his case.”
Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794 (affirming denial of counsel where “[d]iscovery had just
begun” and plaintiff had “identified the applicable legal standard governing his claims
and successfully amended his complaint to include essential information.”).
Mr. Greene has so far been able to communicate with the Court and his pleadings
show that he is able to investigate his claim and describe both the factual and legal
issues in his case. Moreover, the Court finds that neither the facts nor the legal issues
raised in the complaint are so complex as to warrant the appointment of counsel at
this time. However, the Court denies Mr. Greene’s motion for appointment of
counsel without prejudice; Mr. Greene can renew his motion if the relevant
circumstances in this litigation change in the future.
Mr. Greene’s alternative request that the Court require MSOP to allow him to
purchase his own laptop computer to conduct legal research is also denied. MSOP is
not a party in this case. 1 As such, the Court cannot issue an order enjoining MSOP’s
actions in this litigation. See King v. Holland, No. 1:15-cv-01885-DAD-BAM (PC), 2017
WL 1632132, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No.
Because MSOP is not a party, Mr. Greene’s reliance on Pollack v. Holanchock,
No. 10-cv-2402-RPP, 2011 WL 4867558 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2011), is misplaced. In
Pollack, the court required one of the defendants to provide the plaintiff with internet
access so he could conduct legal research related to his ongoing litigation where that
defendant was responsible for eliminating its law library. Id. at *2 (describing an earlier
order requiring a defendant, which was the psychiatric center where the plaintiff was
confined, to provide the plaintiff “with free internet access of Findlaw and Wikipedia
Legal Research as well as access to fax, legal correspondence, (incoming and outgoing)
to conduct the ongoing litigations to which he is a party”).

1

2

115CV01885DADBAM, 2017 WL 3421570 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2017) (“Additionally,
district courts lack the authority to issue an injunction directed at an entity or
individual that is not a party before it.”); Tolbert v. Koenigsmann, No. 9:13-cv-1577
(LEK/DEP), 2016 WL 3349317, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 15, 2016) (“The Court has no
power to enforce an injunction against individuals who are not parties to the
lawsuit.”).
For these reasons, Mr. Greene’s letter requests [ECF Nos. 63–64] are
DENIED.
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 4, 2018

3