Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 28, 2024

Allan v. Harpstead

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:24-cv-03088
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Allan v. Harpstead, Judge Foster granted applications to proceed without paying fees, denied counsel without prejudice, and ordered steps to serve defendants.

Who this affects

Peter Allan and Todd Fernandes received permission to proceed without paying filing fees, but their requests for appointed counsel were denied without prejudice. The order also set service requirements affecting the named defendants.

What happened

In Allan v. Harpstead, Peter Allan and Todd Fernandes sued Jodi Harpstead and other defendants. The court allowed both plaintiffs to proceed without paying filing fees and ordered them to complete service forms for each defendant by September 27, 2024.

The court directed the clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to pursue service of the lawsuit. It also said defendants sued personally could be required to pay later service costs if they failed without good cause to waive formal service.

Judge Dulce J. Foster denied the plaintiffs’ requests for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court said the case did not yet appear especially complicated, the claims were reasonably clear, and Peter Allan had extensive federal-court litigation experience.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Allan v. Harpstead · No. 0:24-cv-03088
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Aug. 28, 2024

Background

Peter Allan and Todd Fernandes brought this case against Jodi Harpstead, Nancy Johnson, Terry Kneisel, Cory Vargeson, Phil Olson, and Robert Gresczyk. The order addressed the plaintiffs’ applications to proceed without paying filing fees, their requests for appointed counsel, and the steps for serving the defendants.

Rulings

The court granted both plaintiffs’ applications to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court ordered each plaintiff to complete and return a Marshal Service Form, Form USM-285, for each defendant by September 27, 2024. The court stated that failure to do so could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

After receiving the completed forms, the clerk was directed to seek service waivers from defendants sued in their personal capacities under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A defendant who failed without good cause to return a waiver within 30 days after it was mailed could be required to pay the later expenses of formal service. The court also directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants in their official capacities as agents of the State of Minnesota under Rule 4(j).

The court denied without prejudice both motions for appointment of counsel. It explained that a person representing themselves in a civil case generally has no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel, and that appointment is within the district court’s discretion. The court said the case did not yet appear particularly complicated, the plaintiffs had presented their claims with reasonable clarity, and Peter Allan had extensive experience litigating in federal court. The court stated that it would reconsider on its own whether appointed counsel was appropriate if circumstances later required it.

Disposition

The fee-waiver applications were granted, the motions for appointment of counsel were denied without prejudice, and the court issued service-of-process directions. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.