Mays v. Sherburne County Jail

Background

The court considered Otis Mays’s May 3, 2020 letter, which contained several requests in his civil case. The opinion states that Mays was unrepresented and in custody. He had received U.S. Marshal Service Form 285 forms for serving defendants but was unsure how to complete them. The court explained that Mays was responsible for providing accurate addresses and completing the forms so the United States Marshal could serve the defendants.

Service Forms and Doe Defendants

Mays said he had not received forms for several individuals, including Sergeant McDonough, Sergeant Bartell, CO Drew Howt, CO Simions, CO Tom Berson, CO Adrian Johnson, CO Linzy, CO Lumply, CO Patton, CO Adam Walkley, CO Paul, and unidentified John Doe and Jane Doe defendants. The court found that only Sergeant Brian McDonough and CO Lumply appeared to have been identified as defendants in the complaint. Because the records showed that forms for those two defendants had previously been mailed, the court instructed the Clerk of Court to resend them. The court declined to provide forms for people who were not named defendants or for unidentified Doe defendants at that time.

The court stated that, after discovery began, Mays could use the discovery process to try to identify the Doe defendants.

Joinder and Restructuring the Complaint

Mays said he did not know how to make his claims fit together in one case. The court repeated an earlier warning that the complaint appeared to concern several potentially unrelated events and might not satisfy the requirement that the defendants share a common question of law or fact. If the claims were ultimately found to be improperly joined and were separated into different lawsuits, Mays would be responsible for the filing fee in each lawsuit he chose to pursue. The court said it could not provide additional guidance on how to draft the complaint, but repeated that Mays should consider limiting the case to one set of claims and defendants.

Appointment of Counsel

Mays asked the court to appoint a lawyer to help him reform his complaint. The court explained that, unlike a criminal defendant, a person in a civil case has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. A court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil plaintiff in its discretion, considering factors such as factual and legal complexity, the ability to investigate and present the claims, conflicting testimony, and the complexity of the legal arguments.

After reviewing the record, the court concluded that appointment of counsel was not warranted at that time. It found that the factual and legal issues did not appear highly complex, the case was not yet at a stage where counsel would help address conflicting testimony, there was no indication Mays could not investigate the facts, and his written submissions showed that he could communicate effectively with the court. The court denied the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

Discovery

Mays asked to conduct limited discovery to identify the Doe defendants, prepare an amended complaint, and otherwise prepare his case. The court explained that discovery ordinarily cannot begin before the parties confer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), but that this restriction did not apply in the same way because Mays was unrepresented and in custody. Still, because no defendants appeared to have been served with the summons and complaint, the court stated that they would not have to respond to discovery requests until service occurred. After service, Mays could serve discovery requests on the defendants.

Requested Prison Materials and Access

Mays asked the court to order the Bureau of Prisons to provide a pencil sharpener and allow him five hours of law-library access each week. The court encouraged Bureau officials to ensure, consistent with legitimate institutional interests, that Mays had access to the materials and facilities needed to litigate. It declined to issue a specific order dictating how the Bureau had to provide that access.

Disposition

The court addressed Mays’s letter requests by ordering the Clerk to resend two service forms, declining to provide forms for other nonnamed or unidentified defendants, denying the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, explaining when discovery could be served, and declining to issue the requested specific order concerning prison materials and law-library access. The Clerk was directed to send Mays a copy of the District of Minnesota’s Pro Se Civil Guidebook and the order. Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.