Greene v. Osborne-Leivian

Background

Guy I. Greene, who was representing himself, filed a motion seeking permission to amend his complaint and a motion seeking appointment of counsel. The court also addressed service of the Second Amended Complaint. The order refers to a Report and Recommendation issued the same day, but this order itself addresses amendment, service, and counsel.

Amended Complaint

The court accepted Greene’s Second Amended Complaint as an amendment allowed as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). Because the amendment was accepted, the court found Greene’s motion seeking permission to amend the complaint moot.

Claims and Remaining Defendants

The case will proceed on Greene’s retaliation, deprivation-of-liberty, due-process, failure-to-protect, and deliberate-indifference claims, to the extent described in Section IV.A.6 of the same-day Report and Recommendation. The order identifies the remaining defendants as Tara Osborne-Leivian, Courtney Menten, Jana Brister-Korby, Nicole Vaneo, Staci Bovin, Paul Mayfield, OSI Doe, Brent Schmidt, Zach Gahm, Rebecca Holmes-Larson, Carlton County Doe, HRU Doe, Andrea Long, Dr. Scherer, M. Saari, and Jenna Younkers.

Service of Process

Because Greene had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, he was entitled to have the U.S. Marshals Service serve the defendants. Greene had submitted service forms for some defendants, but the court ordered him to submit properly completed forms within 30 days for OSI Doe, Schmidt, Gahm, Holmes-Larson, Carlton County Doe, HRU Doe, Saari, Vaneo, Dr. Scherer, and Younkers. If he failed to meet that deadline, the court stated that dismissal of those defendants for failure to prosecute would be recommended.

After receiving the forms, the clerk was directed to seek waivers of service for the defendants in their individual capacities. The Marshals Service was directed to serve the defendants in their official capacities. The order also states that an individual-capacity defendant who failed without good cause to return a waiver within 30 days could be required to pay later service expenses.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Greene’s motion for appointment of counsel. It relied on the reasons given in its January 31, 2020 order and stated that Greene’s litigation history and memorandum, which cited and discussed numerous legal authorities, strongly suggested that he had more legal knowledge than he claimed. The court acknowledged the difficulties posed by Greene’s incarceration, civil commitment, and lack of formal legal education, but found that reasoning from an Eighth Circuit case involving a self-represented prisoner applied equally to him. The court did not hold that Greene was entitled to appointed counsel.

Disposition

The court accepted the Second Amended Complaint, found the motion for permission to amend moot, denied the motion for appointment of counsel, and ordered the specified steps for service of process.