Clark v. Roy
- Susan Nelson
- 0:15-cv-02778
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Clark v. Roy, Judge Nelson overruled Clark’s objections, affirmed a magistrate judge’s order, and denied his transfer and attorney requests.
Courtney Bernard Clark’s requests to be transferred to a safe facility and to have an attorney appointed were denied; the defendants were not the subjects of any new relief in this order.
What happened
In Clark v. Roy, Courtney Bernard Clark objected to a magistrate judge’s denial of his request to be transferred to a safe facility. He also again asked the court to appoint an attorney.
Clark had appealed the case’s final judgment, and the district court explained that the appeal had transferred control over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. Clark also raised additional safety and health concerns and asked to be moved to a facility outside Minnesota.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Clark’s objections and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order. The court denied Clark’s motion to be transferred to a safe facility and denied his request for an attorney.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Roy · No. 0:15-cv-02778
- Susan Nelson
- May 10, 2019
Background
Courtney Bernard Clark, appearing without a lawyer, objected to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s April 12, 2019 order denying his motion to be transferred to a safe facility. Clark also again requested that the court appoint an attorney for him. He had previously appealed the final judgment entered on November 17, 2017.
In his objections, Clark repeated his safety concerns, added health concerns, and asked to be moved to a facility outside Minnesota. The court noted that the appeal was pending when Clark filed his transfer motion.
Court’s Analysis
Under the standard governing review of a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive issue, the district court could overturn the order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that filing a notice of appeal gives jurisdiction over the appealed issues to the court of appeals and removes the district court’s control over those issues. It therefore held that the district court could not consider issues within the appeal or issues outside the original pleadings.
The court separately considered Clark’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that people representing themselves in civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Appointment is discretionary, and relevant factors include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to present the claims, and whether counsel would substantially benefit the person or the court. The court found that the facts and legal issues were not sufficiently complex, that Clark had shown an ability to present and communicate his claims, and that appointing counsel would not substantially benefit him or the court at that time.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson ruled that Magistrate Judge Bowbeer’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The court ordered that Clark’s objections be overruled, affirmed the April 12, 2019 order, denied Clark’s motion to be transferred to a safe facility, and denied his request for an attorney.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.