Allan et al v. Harpstead et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 2 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs; granting 3 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs; denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Action Required by September 27, 2024. See Order for details. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 8/28/2024. (MEH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Peter Allan and Todd Fernandes,

Case No. 24-cv-3088 (ECT/DJF)

Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.
Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of the
Department of Human Services; Nancy
Johnson, Chairman and Executive Officer of
MSOP; Terry Kneisel; Cory Vargeson; Phil
Olson; and Robert Gresczyk,
Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiffs Peter Allan and Todd Fernandez’s applications to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF Nos. [2] & [3]) are GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiffs must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM285) for each defendant. If Plaintiffs do not complete and return the Marshal
Service Forms by September 27, 2024, the Court will recommend that this matter
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court will provide
Marshal Service Forms to Plaintiffs.

3.

Upon receipt of the completed Marshal Service Forms, the Court directs the Clerk
of Court 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.

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

1

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 Court directs the U.S. Marshals Service 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.

Plaintiffs’ motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. [4] & [5]) are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. “A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional
right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538,
546 (8th Cir. 1998); see also In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The
decision to appoint counsel in civil cases is committed to the discretion of the
district court.”). Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary supporting
their motions for appointment of counsel, this does not appear to be a terribly
complicated case. Plaintiffs have presented their claims with reasonable clarity,
and one of those Plaintiffs, Peter Allan, has extensive experience litigating in
federal court. Accordingly, it is not yet apparent that appointment of counsel would
substantially benefit Plaintiffs or the Court at this time. This Court will reconsider
sua sponte whether appointment of counsel is appropriate should circumstances
dictate.

Dated: August 28, 2024

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

2