Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-00213
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Michael Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council, Judge Foster denied Fiorito’s renewed motion for appointed counsel in his civil elevator-maintenance case.
Michael Fiorito, whose renewed request for appointed counsel was denied, and the Metropolitan Council as the opposing party in the case.
What happened
Michael Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council concerns Fiorito’s claim that the Metropolitan Council failed to properly maintain elevators at a public transportation stop.
Fiorito asked the court to appoint a lawyer, arguing that his claims had merit, the case was complex, his physical and mental impairments limited his ability to investigate and present the case, defense counsel had tricked him, the case would involve conflicting testimony at trial, and legal-aid organizations had not agreed to represent him. The court found the issues were not legally or factually complex and said Fiorito’s filings showed he could research and pursue his claim.
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied the renewed motion. The court also rejected Fiorito’s allegation about defense counsel’s conduct and said his inability to find a lawyer was not a factor the court had to consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel in a civil case.
The detailed version
- Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council · No. 0:25-cv-00213
- David Doty
- Apr. 13, 2026
Background
The court considered Michael Fiorito’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Fiorito argued that the court should appoint a lawyer because his claims had merit, the case was complex, physical and mental impairments prevented him from investigating facts and presenting his case, defense counsel had tricked him, the case would proceed to trial with conflicting testimony, and he had been unable to obtain representation from various legal-aid organizations.
The opinion identifies Fiorito’s claim as alleging that the Metropolitan Council failed to adequately maintain elevators at a public transportation stop.
Legal standard
The court explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Appointment is instead left to the court’s discretion. The relevant factors include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate the facts, whether testimony is likely to conflict, and the person’s ability to present the claims.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Fiorito’s claim was not legally or factually complex. It pointed to his numerous motions, amended complaint, discussion of public contracts and public transportation usage statistics, and citations to discovery he had received as evidence that he could conduct legal research and pursue the claim.
The court rejected Fiorito’s assertion that he could not investigate the facts. It also found that his allegation that defense counsel tricked him into delaying a notice for a deposition of the Metropolitan Council under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) was false. According to the court, the communication Fiorito cited occurred more than a month after the deadline for serving that notice had passed.
The court further explained that whether the case would go to trial would not be determined until after any dispositive motions were resolved. Finally, it stated that Fiorito’s inability to find a lawyer willing to take the case was not a factor the court was required to consider when deciding whether to appoint counsel in a civil case.
Disposition
The court denied Fiorito’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.