Larson et al v. Lake et al

Filing 80

ORDER in Response to 79 Letter to District Judge requesting appointment of counsel. Mr. Greene's request for appointment of counsel is denied.(Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 8/1/2018. (BJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
HOLLIS J. LARSON and GUY I.
GREENE,

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

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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

One of the plaintiffs in this case, Guy I. Greene, filed several letters dated July
26, 2018. (ECF No. 79.) In one of these letters, Mr. Greene renews his request for
appointment of counsel.1 (Id. at 5–7 (Letter from G. Greene to Nelson, J., and
Menendez, M.J. (July 26, 2018).) Mr. Greene asserts that personnel at the Minnesota
Sex Offender Program facility in Moose Lake, MN, “retaliated against Greene by
asking [Minnesota Department of Corrections] employees through a Hearings and
Release Unit hearing to violate Mr. Greene’s parole agreement on June 26, 2018.” (Id.
at 5.) Because the DOC “found Greene guilty of violating his conditional release
agreement [he] was sent to prison for 90 days of accountability time.” (Id. at 5–6.)

The Court has previously denied other requests for appointment of counsel in
this case by Mr. Greene. (Order (Oct. 23, 2017), ECF No. 20; Order (June 4, 2018),
ECF No. 70.)

1

1

Mr. Greene is now located at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City,
MN. (Id. at 6.) He asserts that being incarcerated at MCF-Rush City interferes with his
ability to litigate his case; had made it “extremely difficult” for him to communicate
with Hollis Larson (his co-plaintiff); and caused him to miss a deadline to request
expert testimony. (Id.) Further, Mr. Greene states that MCF-Rush City personnel
confiscated mail sent to him by another MSOP “client,” Eugene Banks, which
provided contact information from an expert witness. (Id.) Finally, Mr. Greene argues
that he was forced to file another § 1983 civil rights complaint because of retaliation
by MSOP personnel, 2 and appointing counsel will deter additional retaliation while
also assisting the court and the plaintiffs in preparing for a jury trial in this case. (Id. at
6–7.)
Mr. Greene’s request for appointment of counsel is denied without for the
same reasons provided in the Court’s October 23, 2017 and June 4, 2018 Orders
denying his prior requests. (ECF Nos. 20, 70.) As has been true throughout this
litigation, Mr. Greene is quite capable of communicating with the Court, having filed
several motions and other requests. He has demonstrated the ability to cite legal
authority relating to his requests and otherwise shown himself capable of litigating his
case. The difficulties he identifies, such as meeting the July 2, 2018 expert disclosure
deadline, communicating with others confined at the MSOP facility, and preparing his
case through consultation with his co-plaintiff, Mr. Larson, do not require the
appointment of counsel.3 There is no indication that Mr. Greene suffers any
impediment that is unusual or extraordinary when compared to those encountered by
other pro se litigants who are confined in institutions within the State of Minnesota.
Mr. Greene refers to Greene v. Osborne-Leivian, et al., No. 0:18-cv-01677
(PJS/KMM), Doc. No. 1 (D. Minn. June 8, 2018) (Complaint).

2

The concerns Mr. Greene has raised, at most, suggest there may be a reason to
modify certain deadlines the Court has established to accommodate his changed
circumstances. Mr. Greene has made no such request.

3

2

For these reasons, Mr. Greene’s letter request for appointment of counsel
[ECF No. 70 at 5–7] is DENIED.
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 1, 2018

3