Monson v. Renville County Jail and Ned Wohlman
Chad Lee Monson v. Renville County Jail and Ned Wohlman, in his individual and official capacity
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01665
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Monson v. Renville County Jail, Magistrate Judge Foster denied the plaintiff's request for a free court-appointed lawyer but gave him more time to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Self-represented (pro se) civil plaintiffs who have been granted in forma pauperis status and seek court-appointed counsel; defendants in civil cases where the plaintiff seeks procedural accommodations; parties in cases before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Monson v. Renville County Jail and Ned Wohlman, Chad Lee Monson, a plaintiff representing himself, filed two motions: one asking the court to appoint a lawyer for him at no cost, and one asking for extra time to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss his case.
On the request for an appointed lawyer, the court explained that while a federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)) allows courts to request an attorney for someone who cannot afford one, there is no guaranteed right to a free lawyer in a civil case. Courts weigh several factors — including how complex the facts and legal arguments are, and whether the person can investigate and present their own claims. Here, the court found that the issues are not particularly complex and that Mr. Monson has shown some ability to do legal research, so his lack of legal training alone was not enough to justify appointing counsel.
Magistrate Judge Foster denied Mr. Monson's motion for appointed counsel but granted his request for more time to respond. Because Mr. Monson had been waiting for the court's decision on the counsel question before preparing his response, the court found good cause for an extension. Mr. Monson must now file his response to the defendants' motion to dismiss by December 15, 2025, and the defendants may reply by January 5, 2026.
The detailed version
- Monson v. Renville County Jail and Ned Wohlman · No. 0:25-cv-01665
- Katherine Menendez
- Nov. 24, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Chad Lee Monson is representing himself (proceeding pro se) in a civil lawsuit against Renville County Jail and Ned Wohlman, sued in both his individual and official capacity. The court previously granted Mr. Monson permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees (known as in forma pauperis status). Defendants Renville County and Ned Wohlman filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10). Mr. Monson responded by filing two motions: a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 17) and a Motion for Extension of Time to respond to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19).
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Mr. Monson argued that appointment of counsel was appropriate because (1) he had already been granted in forma pauperis status and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) authorizes the court to request an attorney for someone who cannot afford one. The court acknowledged this authority but noted that the statute creates no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases, citing Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Appointment is entirely within the court's discretion. See McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997).
The court applied the five-factor test from Crozier v. Westside Community School District, 973 F.3d 882, 889 (8th Cir. 2020): (1) factual complexity of the issues; (2) the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts; (3) the existence of conflicting testimony; (4) the plaintiff's ability to present his claims; and (5) the complexity of the legal arguments. The court found that neither the factual nor legal issues are particularly complex, that Mr. Monson has shown some capacity to conduct legal research, and that his lack of legal training alone — which he appears to have cited as the primary basis — does not distinguish his case from those brought by countless other self-represented litigants. Accordingly, the court denied the Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Motion for Extension of Time
Mr. Monson sought additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss, premised on his pending request for appointed counsel. Although the motion for counsel was denied, the court found good cause to grant the extension because Mr. Monson had been waiting for the court's ruling before preparing his response. The court granted the Motion for Extension. Mr. Monson's response to the motion to dismiss is due December 15, 2025; defendants may reply by January 5, 2026.
Disposition
- Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 17): Denied - Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 19): Granted; response due December 15, 2025; defendant reply due January 5, 2026.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.