Mendez v. FMC Facility Section
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:19-cv-02820
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Mendez v. FMC Facility Section, Magistrate Judge Leung denied appointed counsel and set briefing for Defendants’ undecided motion to dismiss.
Raphael Mendez’s request for appointed counsel was denied, while Defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending and was placed on a briefing schedule.
What happened
In Mendez v. FMC Facility Section et al., Raphael Mendez, who was representing himself, asked for a lawyer in this civil case. The opinion states that he is civilly committed under federal law and held at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota.
The court denied Mendez’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that the right to a lawyer under the cited law applies to civil-commitment proceedings—not this civil lawsuit—and found that Mendez had shown he could present his position and had not identified a specific obstacle to representing himself.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung did not decide Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Instead, the order set November 24, 2020, for Mendez’s response and December 8, 2020, for Defendants’ reply, after which the motion would be considered without a hearing.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. FMC Facility Section · No. 0:19-cv-02820
- Nancy Brasel
- Oct. 30, 2020
Background
Raphael Mendez filed this civil action while representing himself. The opinion states that he had been civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 and was being held at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. The order addressed Mendez’s filing described as a “reply” and Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Request for appointed counsel
To the extent Mendez’s filing asked the court to appoint a lawyer, the court denied the request. The court explained that federal law provides a right to counsel in proceedings concerning civil commitment, including proceedings about whether a person has a mental disease or defect and whether release would create a specified risk. The court concluded that this civil lawsuit was not such a proceeding.
The court further stated that, outside those proceedings, civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, courts consider the case’s factual and legal complexity, the person’s ability to investigate facts and present claims, and whether the case involves conflicting testimony. The court found that Mendez’s filings showed an ability to explain his position and a basic understanding of legal procedure. It also found that the case was not unusually complex and that Mendez had not shown a specific obstacle to representing himself. The request for appointed counsel was therefore denied.
The opinion’s footnote states that any effort to challenge the validity of Mendez’s civil commitment had previously been dismissed under a rule concerning criminal convictions and civil claims. It also states that such a challenge would need to be brought through a separate federal petition concerning unlawful detention.
Motion to dismiss
Defendants’ motion to dismiss was not decided in this order. The court set a briefing schedule: Mendez’s response was due by November 24, 2020, and Defendants’ reply was due by December 8, 2020. The motion would then be considered based on the written submissions, without a hearing, and the court would issue a report and recommendation.
Disposition
The request for appointment of counsel was denied. The motion to dismiss remained pending, subject to the briefing schedule. The order also stated that earlier consistent orders remained in effect and described possible remedies for failure to comply with the order or other consistent orders.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.