Brown v. Cooper
- David Doty
- 0:18-cv-00219
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Brown v. Cooper, Judge Thorson denied James N. Brown, Jr.’s requests for appointed counsel and a medical expert, allowing him to renew the counsel request later.
James N. Brown, Jr.; his requests for appointed counsel and a medical expert were denied, with the counsel request denied without prejudice. The defendants were not granted relief by this order.
What happened
In Brown v. Cooper, James N. Brown, Jr., who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He said his case was too complex, he could not obtain expert affidavits while imprisoned, and he had health problems.
The court found that Brown’s filings showed he could investigate his claims and explain the factual and legal issues. Brown also asked for a medical expert after Mayo Clinic and Dr. Misbah Baqir indicated that a medical malpractice claim might require expert affidavits under Minnesota law.
The court denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning Brown could renew it later, and denied the request for a medical expert. Judge Thorson explained that the court was not required to provide litigation assistance or an expert for one party and found no compelling circumstances for appointing a neutral expert.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Cooper · No. 0:18-cv-00219
- David Doty
- July 10, 2018
Background
James N. Brown, Jr., a self-represented plaintiff, moved for appointment of counsel. He argued that parts of the case were too complex for him, that he could not obtain expert affidavits while imprisoned, and that his health problems supported appointing counsel. Brown had previously asked for counsel, and that request had been denied without prejudice.
Brown also moved for a medical expert. He said he received a letter from Mayo Clinic and Dr. Misbah Baqir stating that he appeared to be asserting a medical malpractice claim against the Mayo defendants and that Minnesota Statute § 145.682 might require an affidavit from a medical expert.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that people who cannot afford litigation do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Appointment is discretionary. The court considers factors such as the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony is likely.
The court concluded that Brown’s complaint and other filings showed that he could investigate his claims and adequately describe the relevant factual and legal issues. The court also stated that there were no signs that Brown was having trouble communicating with the court.
The court rejected the request for a medical expert as well. It stated that a person proceeding without payment of court fees is not entitled to affirmative assistance from the court in conducting discovery. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 allows appointment of a neutral expert in appropriate circumstances; it does not generally provide for an expert to assist and be paid for one party. The court found that Brown had not shown the compelling circumstances needed for appointment of a neutral expert. The court made no findings at that stage about Brown’s claims or which law applied.
Disposition
The court denied Brown’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel without prejudice. It denied Brown’s Motion for Medical Expert. Judge Becky R. Thorson signed the order on July 10, 2018.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.