Day v. State of Minnesota

Background

Roger J. Day filed a request for an extension of time to make an oral motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying referral to the Pro Se Project. The opinion states that it was unclear whether Day sought permission to submit a proposed reconsideration motion or simply more time to submit it.

Day said he had a disability that severely limited his ability to perform tasks needed to access justice, including searching for an attorney. He argued that the earlier order incorrectly treated referral to the Pro Se Project as equivalent to appointing counsel and that the court was required to follow an established referral process. The court noted that the origin and status of the document on which Day relied were unclear and that the document was not binding on the court.

Court’s Analysis

Under Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must show compelling circumstances to obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration motions have a limited purpose: correcting clear legal or factual errors or presenting newly discovered evidence.

The court relied on prior decisions stating that it had no obligation to refer an unrepresented litigant to the Pro Se Project. It also noted that civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. Although Day alleged a disability, the court observed that he had demonstrated an ability to litigate by explaining the basis of his claim, making requests through letters and telephone calls to chambers, and registering for electronic filing.

Disposition

The court denied Day’s Request for Extension of Time to Make Oral Motion for Reconsideration of Order denying referral to Pro Se Project. The court separately stated that it would consider reasonable requests for extensions of time, including requests related to the State of Minnesota’s pending motion to dismiss. Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright signed the order.