Rodd v. Crandall
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02172
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Rodd v. Crandall, Judge Menendez denied Rodd’s renewed request for appointed counsel without prejudice, directed summonses to be sent, and extended defendants’ response deadline.
Jeffrey Charles Rodd, who was representing himself, and the defendants, particularly C. Nickrenz and K. Crandall, whose service and response deadline were addressed.
What happened
In Rodd v. Crandall, Jeffrey Charles Rodd responded to the Court’s instructions about serving two defendants, Nickrenz and Crandall. Defense counsel reported that Rodd sent the complaint but not summonses for those defendants.
The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send summonses for Nickrenz and Crandall to defense counsel. Because of delays and the time defendants had known about the claims, the Court extended the deadline for a consolidated answer or other response to March 5, 2021.
Rodd also renewed his request for appointed counsel. The Court again denied that request without prejudice, finding that he had explained his claims clearly and that it was too early to know whether the case would become too complex for him to handle without a lawyer. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.
The detailed version
- Rodd v. Crandall · No. 0:19-cv-02172
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
Jeffrey Charles Rodd, the plaintiff, sent a letter responding to the Court’s December 17, 2020 order. Rodd said he had followed the Court’s instructions concerning defense counsel’s September 15, 2020 letter about accepting service for Defendants C. Nickrenz and K. Crandall. Defense counsel reported that Rodd sent the letter and a copy of the complaint but did not include a summons for either defendant.
Service and response deadline
The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send summonses for Nickrenz and Crandall to defense counsel. The Court also amended the previously established deadline for the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The defendants were ordered to file a consolidated answer or other response by March 5, 2021.
Request for appointed counsel
Rodd renewed his request for appointment of counsel. The Court had denied his earlier request on October 2, 2019, without prejudice. The Court explained that a person representing himself in a civil case does not have an automatic right to appointed counsel and that appointment is left to the district court’s discretion.
The Court again denied Rodd’s renewed request without prejudice. It found that Rodd continued to explain his claims with reasonable clarity and had communicated effectively with the Court. The Court also stated that, at this stage, it could not determine whether the factual or legal issues would become too complex for Rodd to handle without a lawyer.
Disposition
The Court directed the Clerk to send the two summonses, set March 5, 2021, as the deadline for the defendants’ consolidated answer or other response, and denied Rodd’s renewed request for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.