Durham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:20-cv-01250
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hal Durham v. United States of America, Magistrate Judge Thorson denied Durham’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because his actions showed he could litigate.
Hal Durham, whose motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice; the opinion does not otherwise resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
Hal Durham asked the court to appoint a lawyer, saying that his mental and physical condition prevented him from handling the lawsuit and that his paralegal could not assist him. The case concerns Durham’s medical-malpractice claim involving treatment for a slow heartbeat.
The court explained that people generally do not have a constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed lawyer in civil cases. It considered the case’s complexity, Durham’s ability to investigate and present his claims, and other circumstances. Although medical-malpractice claims can be factually complex, the court found that Durham had not identified the conditions that impaired him and had taken several steps to move the case forward.
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson concluded that appointing counsel was not warranted at that time and denied Durham’s motion without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Durham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 0:20-cv-01250
- Nancy Brasel
- May 11, 2021
Background
Hal Durham requested appointment of counsel. He said he was unable to respond to the defendants’ motions, that his paralegal could not assist him, and that his mental and physical condition prevented him from pursuing the lawsuit. The opinion identifies the underlying lawsuit as including a medical-malpractice claim concerning allegedly improper treatment for bradycardia, or a slow heartbeat.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may ask an attorney to represent someone who cannot afford counsel. The relevant considerations include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate the facts and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony is likely. The court has substantial discretion in deciding whether representation is warranted.
Court’s reasoning
The court acknowledged that medical-malpractice claims can become factually complex. But it noted that Durham did not identify which mental or physical conditions interfered with his ability to prosecute the case. The court assumed that he was referring to the alleged effects of the bradycardia treatment, but also observed that his complaint did not explain what he meant by being “permanently injured and handicapped.”
The court further relied on Durham’s conduct in the case. He had promptly complied with orders concerning his application to proceed without paying the filing fee, provided service forms as directed, requested updates about service, and responded to the defendants’ answers. The court concluded that these actions did not show that appointed counsel was warranted at that time.
Disposition
The court denied Durham’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.