Braun v. D.O.C.
- Steven Rau
- 0:18-cv-03355
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Braun v. D.O.C., Judge Rau denied Braun’s counsel request without prejudice and set deadlines for the pending dismissal motion.
Nathan Christopher Braun’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending under the court’s new briefing schedule.
What happened
Braun sued prison officials after an incident he says involved injuries, force, inadequate conditions, and denied services. He filed a second amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss it.
Braun asked the court to appoint a lawyer before responding to the dismissal motion. The court found that the issues were not complex and that Braun had so far complied with court requirements.
Judge Steven E. Rau denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice and set deadlines for Braun’s response, the defendants’ reply, and Braun’s surreply. The court did not decide the pending dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Braun v. D.O.C. · No. 0:18-cv-03355
- Steven Rau
- Oct. 11, 2019
Background
Nathan Christopher Braun filed this action on December 10, 2018. After the court identified deficiencies in his original and first amended complaints, Braun filed a second amended complaint on May 24, 2019.
Braun alleges that, while he was in prison, he began a hunger strike and was then moved to another cell. He claims that prison officials injured him during that process, used chemical deterrents, pushed him down stairs, used restraints to cause pain, denied him health care and basic necessities, and denied access to legal mail, legal counsel, and his therapist. He also alleges that officials falsified reports about the incident. Braun seeks protective placement, criminal and civil charges against the defendants, and $1.5 million.
Motions and ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Braun had not responded to that motion when he requested appointed counsel.
The court explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request a lawyer for a person who cannot afford one. Relevant considerations include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, conflicting testimony, and the complexity of the legal arguments.
Judge Steven E. Rau concluded that appointed counsel was not warranted at that time. The court found that the factual and legal issues were not complex, that Braun’s claims arose from one incident and its handling, and that Braun had not shown difficulties litigating the case. The court therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Braun’s motion to request appointment of counsel for professional representation.
Briefing schedule
The court ordered that Braun’s response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss was due November 8, 2019; the defendants’ reply was due November 22, 2019; and Braun’s surreply was due December 13, 2019. The court stated that it would then take the matter under advisement based on the written submissions. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.