Henderson v. State of MN

Background

Edward A. Henderson moved to amend his complaint, requested appointment of counsel or a referral to the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project, and sought several injunctions against the State of Minnesota and other entities. The State had filed a motion to dismiss on April 10, 2019.

Motion to Amend

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may amend a pleading once without court permission within 21 days after service of certain motions, including a motion under Rule 12. The court concluded that Henderson’s deadline was May 1, 2019, but he filed his motion to amend on May 16, 2019. He therefore needed the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission.

The court also held that the motion did not comply with District of Minnesota Local Rule 15.1(b). That rule requires a proposed amended pleading and a version showing the changes from the existing pleading. Henderson filed neither document. The court denied the motion to amend without prejudice to filing a new motion that complies with the local rule. It directed him to file the new motion within 14 days, including the proposed amended complaint and a redline or comparable version showing the changes. After refiling, the State was required either to oppose the motion under the local rules or submit a letter stating that it did not oppose it.

Appointment of Counsel

Henderson argued in part that his disabilities supported appointing counsel under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court stated that civil litigants have no constitutional right to appointed counsel and that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require courts to provide legal counsel for people with disabilities. The court also stated that it had no obligation to refer a self-represented litigant to the Pro Se Project.

The court recognized that, in civil-rights matters, it may request an attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 when the circumstances justify doing so. Relevant considerations include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether testimony conflicts. The court found that Henderson had shown familiarity with the facts and an ability to litigate by filing his complaint, motions, response, exhibits, statutes, and case citations. It denied the motion for appointment of counsel, while stating that it would consider reasonable requests for extensions or other reasonable requests.

Injunction Requests and Disposition

Because Henderson planned to refile his motion to amend, the court deferred deciding his requests for injunctive relief.

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that the motion to amend was denied without prejudice, the motion for appointment of counsel was denied, and the injunction requests would not be decided at that time. The opinion does not decide the State’s motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.