Loper v. Knutson
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:18-cv-02623
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Loper v. Knutson, Judge Leung denied counsel without prejudice, granted more reply time, and ordered a response about a possibly incomplete record.
Jeremia Joseph Loper’s ability to litigate his habeas petition was affected: he was not appointed counsel, but he received more time to file a supplemental reply. The respondent was ordered to address whether the record was incomplete.
What happened
Jeremia Joseph Loper, who was representing himself, filed a petition challenging his custody and asked the court to appoint a lawyer and extend his deadline to reply. He said a state corrections agent had his legal materials and that limited law-library access made preparing his reply difficult.
The court found that Loper’s filings showed he could explain his position and understood basic court procedures. It also found that the issues did not appear unusually complex. But the court concluded that his problems accessing his property and legal resources provided a good reason to extend his reply deadline.
In Loper v. Knutson, Judge Tony N. Leung denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, granted the request for more time, allowed a supplemental reply by March 15, 2019, and ordered the respondent to address whether the record was missing a document by February 26, 2019.
The detailed version
- Loper v. Knutson · No. 0:18-cv-02623
- Joan Ericksen
- Feb. 11, 2019
Background
Jeremia Joseph Loper filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his custody. While that matter was being briefed, he was transferred between correctional facilities. He said that a state department of corrections agent took possession of his property, including legal work, contacts, and evidence related to his claims.
Loper filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel and a motion seeking additional time to file a reply. He explained that he lacked access to his property and legal materials and had difficulty using the law library. The respondent did not object to giving Loper additional time.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that a person in a civil case, including a habeas proceeding, generally has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Instead, appointment is left to the court’s discretion. The court determined that appointment was not warranted at that time because Loper’s filings showed that he could explain his position, understood basic legal procedures, and cited legal authorities. The court also found that the factual and legal issues did not appear more complex than those in other habeas petitions routinely filed in that court.
The court therefore denied without prejudice Loper’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Extension and Record
The court recognized that incarceration, limited access to legal resources, and the process for recovering Loper’s property created difficulties. It found good cause to extend the deadline for Loper’s reply. Although Loper had already filed a reply called a “Traverse,” the court allowed him to file a supplemental reply on or before March 15, 2019.
Loper also said that the respondent’s filing contained only two of three affidavits he had filed in state post-conviction court. He identified the allegedly missing document as an “Affidavit of Tracey Leet.” The court directed the respondent to respond by February 26, 2019, and, if necessary, supplement the record with missing documents.
Order
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Loper’s motion for appointment of counsel was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that his motion for a filing extension was GRANTED. The court authorized a supplemental reply by March 15, 2019, directed the respondent to address the allegedly incomplete record by February 26, 2019, and stated that no further submissions would be permitted unless the court expressly authorized them.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.