Favors v. Johnson
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:19-cv-00032
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Favors v. Johnson, Judge Leung ordered an amended complaint, denied counsel without prejudice, and provided a self-representation guide.
Joseph Anthony Favors must file an amended complaint by April 8, 2019 if he intends to continue; his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice. The three defendants would otherwise have to respond to the amended pleading.
What happened
Joseph Anthony Favors sued three Minnesota Sex Offender Program officials, alleging violations of federal and state law. In Favors v. Johnson, the court reviewed his request to proceed without paying fees and his request for a court-appointed lawyer.
The court ordered Favors to file a shorter amended complaint by April 8, 2019, before it would rule on his fee request. It denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice and directed the clerk to give him a guide for people representing themselves.
The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, who concluded that Favors’s filings showed he could present his claims and that the case did not require appointed counsel at that stage.
The detailed version
- Favors v. Johnson · No. 0:19-cv-00032
- Patrick Schiltz
- Mar. 15, 2019
Background
Joseph Anthony Favors, identified in the order as a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, sued Nancy Johnson, Dave Frey, and Bruce Beaman in their individual and official capacities. He alleged violations of federal and state law. The court considered Favors’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and his motion for appointment of an attorney.
Amended complaint
The court held that Favors’s 118-page complaint, which contained hundreds of paragraphs and subparagraphs and 338 footnotes, did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). That rule requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement explaining why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court noted that Favors might be asserting four claims against three defendants, and that the complaint’s length would burden the defendants by requiring them to respond to each allegation.
Rather than recommend dismissal at that time, the court ordered Favors to submit an amended complaint complying with Rule 8, the other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the District of Minnesota’s local rules by April 8, 2019. The order stated that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed. The court did not rule on Favors’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.
Request for appointed counsel
The court explained that people in civil cases generally do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. A court may request an attorney to represent a person unable to afford one, but the decision is discretionary. Relevant considerations include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony or specific discovery problems exist.
The court found that Favors’s filings showed an ability to explain his position and a basic understanding of legal procedure. It also noted that he had filed more than 10 cases without a lawyer since 2010, that his complaint cited and discussed numerous legal authorities, and that he had not identified specific discovery he could not obtain. Although the court recognized the challenges associated with Favors’s civil commitment and lack of formal legal education, it concluded that the factual and legal issues did not appear unusually complex. The court therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Favors’s motion for appointment of an attorney.
Order
The court ordered Favors to file an amended complaint by April 8, 2019; denied without prejudice his motion for appointment of an attorney; and directed the clerk to provide him with the court’s guide for people representing themselves. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.