Spencer v. Brott
- David Doty
- 0:17-cv-05035
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Spencer v. Brott, Judge Leung granted in part and denied in part Spencer’s motion, extending his amendment deadline but denying counsel.
Marvin Spencer received one final deadline extension to file an amended complaint but was not appointed counsel at that time. The action could be subject to a recommendation of summary dismissal if he failed to file by December 3, 2018.
What happened
In Spencer v. Brott, Marvin Spencer, who was incarcerated in California, asked for 90 more days to file an amended complaint and appeared also to request appointed counsel. He said that representing himself was difficult, that he had limited law-library access, and that he lacked some documents.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It gave Spencer one final extension and required him to file an amended complaint by December 3, 2018. The court denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning he could renew that request later if the case proceeded to trial. No further extensions would be granted, and failure to file could lead the court to recommend summary dismissal of the action.
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued the order on August 30, 2018.
The detailed version
- Spencer v. Brott · No. 0:17-cv-05035
- David Doty
- Aug. 30, 2018
Background
Marvin Spencer asked for a 90-day extension to file an amended complaint and, apparently, for the court to appoint a lawyer for him. Spencer stated that he was incarcerated in California, was litigating on his own behalf, had limited access to a law library, and did not have certain documents.
The court had previously ordered Spencer to file an amended complaint by May 2, 2018. After Spencer requested a 90-day extension, the court granted that request. Spencer then requested another 90-day extension.
Ruling on the Extension
The court found good cause for one final extension. It ordered Spencer to file his amended complaint no later than December 3, 2018. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted and that, if Spencer failed to file the amended complaint, it would recommend that the action be summarily dismissed.
Ruling on Appointed Counsel
The court explained that a person generally has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Federal law allows a court to ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford one, but appointment is discretionary. Relevant considerations include the complexity of the facts and legal issues, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony is likely.
The court concluded that appointment was not warranted at that time. It found that Spencer’s filings showed he could explain his position and had a basic understanding of legal procedure. It also found that the medical-needs issues in the case were not unusually complex, and that Spencer had not identified a specific obstacle beyond legal inexperience and limited law-library access. The court noted that Spencer had been given a pro se civil guidebook and had received the extension he requested. Spencer could renew the request for counsel if the case reached trial.
Disposition
The court ordered that Spencer’s “Motion for Time Extension and Affidavit for Appoint [sic] Counsel” was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The extension was granted, with a December 3, 2018 deadline, while the request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice. Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.