Nahal v. Allina Health System
- Donovan Frank
- 0:18-cv-00631
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Nahal v. Allina Health System, Magistrate Judge Menendez denied Armon Nahal’s request to restore a volunteer-lawyer referral program.
The ruling affected Armon Nahal’s request for another referral through the Pro Se Project and the project’s handling of any further volunteer-lawyer referral.
What happened
In Nahal v. Allina Health System, Armon Nahal asked the court to restore access to the Minnesota Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project, which connects people without lawyers with volunteer attorneys. He said he could not afford a lawyer and believed he qualified for the service.
The court explained that the project tries to give unrepresented people an opportunity to discuss their cases with a lawyer, but neither the project nor a volunteer lawyer must represent someone. The court found that Nahal had already consulted with attorney Michael Healey and therefore did not need another referral.
The court denied Nahal’s motion and explained that people in civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed lawyer. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.
The detailed version
- Nahal v. Allina Health System · No. 0:18-cv-00631
- Donovan Frank
- July 5, 2018
Background
Armon Nahal, who was representing himself, asked the court “to restore the pro se project.” The Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project had previously attempted to connect him with volunteer lawyers who could provide a general opinion about his claims. The court had told Nahal that a volunteer lawyer might agree to represent him, but was not required to do so.
Nahal said he was trying to obtain representation from Michael Healey when the project coordinator attempted to connect him with another lawyer, Shawn Wanta. After Nahal believed that a lawyer through the project had agreed to take his case, he stopped payment on a check to Healey. The coordinator then asked Wanta to cancel a meeting and pause further communications with Nahal while the court determined how to proceed.
Court’s analysis
Nahal asked the court to require the Pro Se Project to make further efforts to refer him to a volunteer lawyer. The court denied that request because Nahal had already had an opportunity to speak with Healey about his case and had almost certainly received a general opinion about the merits of his claims and advice about how to proceed. The court also stated that it appeared Nahal had secured counsel by retaining Healey, although he later changed his mind.
The court rejected Nahal’s suggestion that being a tax-paying U.S. citizen gave him a right to court-appointed counsel. Citing Davis v. Scott, the court stated that people who cannot afford lawyers in civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez denied Nahal’s motion. The court stated that no further referral from the Pro Se Project would be forthcoming because Nahal had already consulted with counsel.
Note on judge information
The provided case metadata identifies Donovan Frank, but the opinion is signed by Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge. This summary uses the judge identified in the opinion’s signature.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.