Mark Franklin, Jr. v. William Bolin, David Spets, and Daniel Hickey
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-04330
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Franklin v. Bolin, Judge Foster denied plaintiff Mark Franklin, Jr.'s request for a court-appointed attorney but referred him to a volunteer legal assistance program.
People who are representing themselves in federal civil cases in the District of Minnesota and who seek court-appointed counsel due to limited financial resources or the perceived complexity of their cases.
What happened
In Franklin v. Bolin (Case No. 25-cv-4330), plaintiff Mark Franklin, Jr. filed a motion asking the court to appoint a lawyer for him, arguing that his case is complex and that he has limited access to legal resources and case management tools. The defendants are William Bolin, David Spets, and Daniel Hickey.
The court explained that there is no legal right to a free, court-appointed attorney in civil (non-criminal) cases. Instead, appointment of counsel is left to the judge's discretion based on five factors: how factually and legally complex the case is, the person's ability to investigate the facts and present their claims, and whether there is conflicting witness testimony. The court found that Mr. Franklin's case is not particularly complex in either its facts or legal arguments, and that he has already shown he can present his arguments clearly and with appropriate support in documents he has filed.
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Mr. Franklin's motion for appointed counsel, finding that his financial limitations alone do not set his situation apart from the many other people who bring civil cases without a lawyer. However, Judge Foster also referred Mr. Franklin to the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, a voluntary program that may connect him with a volunteer attorney who can consult with him at no charge.
The detailed version
- Mark Franklin, Jr. v. William Bolin, David Spets, and Daniel Hickey · No. 0:25-cv-04330
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 23, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Mark Franklin, Jr. filed a motion (ECF No. 15) requesting that the court appoint counsel to represent him. He argued that the complexity of his case and his limited access to legal and case management resources justified such an appointment. The defendants are William Bolin, David Spets, and Daniel Hickey. The underlying merits of the case are not described in this order.
Legal Standard
The court noted that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Appointment is a discretionary matter for the court, guided by five factors drawn from Eighth Circuit precedent (Crozier v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist., 973 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2020)):
- The factual complexity of the issues
- The ability of the indigent (financially unable to afford counsel) person to investigate the facts
- The existence of conflicting testimony
- The ability of the indigent person to present their claims
- The complexity of the legal arguments
Analysis and Ruling
Applying these factors, Judge Foster found that appointment of counsel was unwarranted at this time. Specifically, the court concluded:
- Neither the factual nor the legal issues in the case are particularly complex. - Mr. Franklin has demonstrated an ability to investigate the facts and present his arguments, as evidenced by his filings (ECF Nos. 1, 15, 16). While not all of his motions were successful, he presented his arguments with reasonable clarity and appropriate factual and legal support. - His lack of financial resources alone is insufficient to warrant appointment of counsel, as it does not distinguish his situation from that of the many other pro se (self-represented) litigants who bring civil cases.
Accordingly, Judge Foster denied the motion.
Referral to Pro Se Project
Although the motion was denied, the court determined that volunteer legal assistance might be helpful to Mr. Franklin and referred him to the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Participation in this program is voluntary. If Mr. Franklin elects to participate and a volunteer attorney is available, he may be able to consult with that attorney about his case at no charge. The court indicated it would provide Mr. Franklin with additional details about the program in a separate letter.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.