Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01823
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Tunheim denied Larson’s appeals and affirmed orders denying counsel, discovery relief, and fee waiver.
Hollis J. Larson, who is representing himself, was denied appointed counsel, a motion to compel discovery, and a waiver of electronic filing fees. The Minnesota Department of Human Services and the other defendants were not required to provide the requested discovery format, return address, or assistance with electronic filing.
What happened
Hollis J. Larson sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services and others over the alleged failure to diagnose and treat his post-traumatic stress disorder while he was civilly committed at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Four of his original ten claims remain, and he is representing himself.
Larson appealed orders denying his repeated requests for appointed counsel, his motion to compel discovery in a searchable format and with a particular return address, and his request to waive electronic filing fees and require defendants to help with electronic filing. He also objected to the magistrate judge’s continued involvement in the case.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied Larson’s appeals and affirmed the magistrate judge’s orders. The court concluded that Larson had shown he could litigate the case, had not shown that defendants violated the discovery rules, and was not entitled to have the court or defendants pay his litigation expenses. The court noted that the counsel denials were without prejudice, allowing another request if circumstances materially change.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:23-cv-01823
- John Tunheim
- June 24, 2025
Background
Hollis J. Larson, who is civilly committed at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program facility in Moose Lake, Minnesota, brought this action against the Minnesota Department of Human Services and others. He broadly alleged that his post-traumatic stress disorder went undiagnosed for many years while he was committed there. The court previously dismissed six of his ten claims; an official-capacity unlawful-punishment claim and three disability-discrimination claims remained.
Larson repeatedly asked the magistrate judge to appoint counsel. The magistrate judge denied those requests and referred him to the Pro Se Project, but Larson withdrew from that program. Larson also moved to compel defendants to provide discovery in searchable PDF format and to use a particular return address, and he moved to waive electronic filing fees and require defendants to assist with his electronic filing. The magistrate judge denied those motions as well. Larson appealed or objected to the denials.
Standard of Review
The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s rulings on these nondispositive pretrial matters under the deferential standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). The court could reverse only if an order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A decision is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing the evidence, the court has a firm belief that a mistake was made. A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, cases, or procedural rules.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that a person generally has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Appointment is instead left to the court’s discretion, based on factors including the case’s complexity, the person’s ability to investigate facts, whether testimony conflicts, and the person’s ability to present the claim.
The court found that the magistrate judge considered the relevant factors and did not clearly err in denying counsel. In particular, Larson had shown that he could litigate the case: four of his ten claims survived dismissal, and he obtained an order requiring discovery to be produced in a format he could access. The court also considered Larson’s withdrawal from the Pro Se Project when evaluating his request for appointed counsel. The court therefore denied Larson’s appeals concerning appointment of counsel and affirmed the magistrate judge’s orders. It noted that each denial of counsel had been without prejudice, but cautioned Larson against repeated requests without a material change in the litigation.
The court also rejected Larson’s argument that the magistrate judge could not continue participating because Larson had not consented to magistrate-judge review. Consent is required for a magistrate judge to issue a final judgment, but the magistrate judge had not issued a final judgment. The district judge remained the presiding judge.
Motion to Compel
The court affirmed the denial of Larson’s motion to compel. Larson sought searchable PDFs and a particular return address to preserve legal privilege. The court found that the parties had not presented any searchable-PDF requirement to the court and were instead subject to the minimum requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Larson had not shown that defendants failed to meet those requirements.
The court also held that correspondence between Larson and defendants was not privileged. Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and the attorney’s client, and the court concluded that Larson’s request for a particular return address was properly denied.
Electronic Filing Fee Waiver
The court affirmed the denial of Larson’s motion to waive electronic filing fees and require defendants to assist with electronic filing. The court understood Larson’s objections to concern the expense of providing documents in print rather than electronically. It concluded that neither the court nor defendants were required to provide funds to cover the litigation costs of a self-represented plaintiff.
Disposition
Judge John R. Tunheim denied Larson’s appeals and objections concerning appointment of counsel and affirmed the magistrate judge’s orders denying those requests. The court also denied Larson’s appeal or objection concerning the motion to compel and fee waiver and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order denying those motions.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.