Pitts v. Duffield
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:20-cv-00883
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Pitts v. Duffield, Judge Thorson denied Pitts’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice and ordered a response to the dismissal motion by June 29, 2020.
Herbert Pitts, whose request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice and who was ordered to respond to the motion to dismiss by June 29, 2020.
What happened
In Pitts v. Duffield, Herbert Pitts asked the court to appoint an appellate public defender who had represented him before to represent him in this case.
The court reviewed Pitts’s petition and the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss. It concluded that the case did not appear significantly more complicated than other habeas petitions filed in the court, so appointing counsel was not warranted at that time.
Judge Thorson denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning the request could be made again, and ordered Pitts to respond to the motion to dismiss by June 29, 2020.
The detailed version
- Pitts v. Duffield · No. 0:20-cv-00883
- Patrick Schiltz
- May 28, 2020
Background
Herbert Pitts moved for appointment of counsel on May 6, 2020. He asked the court to appoint an appellate public defender who had represented him previously. The opinion also refers to Pitts’s petition and to a pending motion to dismiss filed by the defendant.
Legal standard
The court cited decisions stating that a person representing himself in a civil case does not have a statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel. Appointment of counsel in civil cases is instead left to the district court’s discretion.
Court’s analysis
After reviewing the petition and the pending motion to dismiss, the court said the case did not appear significantly more complicated than other habeas petitions filed in the court. The court therefore concluded that appointment of counsel did not appear warranted at that time.
Disposition
The court denied Pitts’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The court also ordered Pitts to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss no later than June 29, 2020. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.