Evenstad v. Pawlenty

Background

Thomas Evenstad, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil complaint against Tim Pawlenty, Rich Stanek, Joan Fabian, Mike Hatch, the Minnesota Department of Corrections, the State of Minnesota, unidentified defendants, and Peter Orput. The opinion states that Evenstad was serving a sentence for sending threatening communications and was incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater, Minnesota.

Evenstad sought compensation based on allegations that Minnesota officials did not follow his 2003 advice to implement GPS tracking for people released from prison who were at high risk of sexually violent behavior. He alleged that a person in that category was released without GPS tracking and later murdered Dru Sjodin. His objections also restated allegations that defendants ignored or took his proposal, violated his constitutional right to due process, retaliated against him, and caused intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Procedural history and issues

A magistrate judge reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the statute requiring screening of certain complaints filed by people seeking to proceed without paying court fees. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice because Evenstad had not adequately stated claims for which relief could be granted. The recommendation also treated Evenstad’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and his motion to compel as moot.

Evenstad objected and primarily requested appointment of counsel so he could amend his complaint. He also filed a motion to compel production of the complaint by Dru Sjodin’s family. The district court independently reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which he objected.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that people representing themselves in civil cases do not have an automatic constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Appointment is discretionary, and the court considers factors such as the factual and legal complexity of the case, the litigant’s ability to present the claims, and whether counsel would benefit the litigant and the court. The court found that the facts and legal issues were not sufficiently complex to warrant appointing counsel.

The court also concluded that Evenstad’s objections did not provide new information supporting his claims. Repeating the allegations in the complaint was not enough to satisfy the requirement that a complaint state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The court therefore agreed with the magistrate judge that Evenstad had failed to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Evenstad’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The matter was dismissed without prejudice. The court denied Evenstad’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot and denied his motion to compel as moot. The opinion uses “Petition” once when discussing the dismissal, but the complaint and the numbered order identify the dismissed filing as the complaint and the dismissed matter as the case.