Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

Jeremy Pinson, proceeding without a lawyer, asked for permission to file a late reply to the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ opposition. The court had previously allowed a reply by March 28, 2025, but no reply had been filed by the date of this order.

Pinson also asked the court to appoint a pro bono lawyer. The court explained that civil cases do not generally require courts to provide lawyers to people who cannot afford them. It also stated that the relevant statute allows a court to request, rather than require, a lawyer to represent an eligible litigant.

Rulings

The court granted Pinson an extension to file the anticipated reply. The new deadline was May 26, 2025. The court stated that it would not consider a reply filed after that date.

The court denied Pinson’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel without prejudice. The court considered the merits of the case, the efforts made to obtain a lawyer, and Pinson’s ability to present the case without assistance. It concluded that the case was too early in the proceedings for the court to assess the merits. Because the denial was without prejudice, the order allows the request to be renewed later.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the required appeal fees. The court reminded the parties that failing to follow court orders or applicable rules could lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal or exclusion of claims or evidence.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order did not decide the underlying merits of Pinson’s case against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It addressed the reply deadline, the request for counsel, and the payment status for a possible appeal.