Heggs v. Lindblom
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-02118
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Heggs v. Lindblom, Judge Menendez denied Terry Heggs’s renewed request for appointed counsel because circumstances had not changed.
Terry Heggs’s request for court-appointed counsel was denied; the order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Heggs v. Lindblom, Terry Heggs again asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him. He argued that he needed counsel after several correctional officers he had named as defendants were dismissed.
The court said the case had not become more complex, had not reached a stage requiring counsel to question conflicting testimony, and showed no indication that Heggs could not investigate the facts. The court also noted that he had communicated capably about his claims and that an unfavorable ruling did not by itself justify appointing a lawyer.
Judge Menendez denied the motion for appointment of counsel. The court relied on the same reasons given when it denied Heggs’s earlier request.
The detailed version
- Heggs v. Lindblom · No. 0:20-cv-02118
- David Doty
- Aug. 19, 2021
Background
The court considered Terry Heggs’s motion for appointment of counsel. Heggs had previously requested appointed counsel, and the court denied that request on April 16, 2021, because the case was not sufficiently complex at that time. The court had said he could renew the request if relevant circumstances changed.
Heggs submitted two May 26, 2021, letters requesting an attorney. The court treated the letter filed at docket entry 16 as the motion. Heggs argued that he needed counsel because several correctional officers he originally named as defendants had been dismissed. He also stated that he was not good at handling those matters himself.
Legal standard
The court explained that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in this type of case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. Relevant considerations include the factual and legal complexity of the issues, whether conflicting testimony exists, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate facts and present claims.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the relevant circumstances had not changed since its earlier decision. The case had not become more complex, it was not at the trial stage where counsel might be needed to question witnesses about conflicting testimony, and the record did not indicate that Heggs would be unable to investigate the facts. The court also found that Heggs had shown he could communicate with the court about his claims.
The court rejected Heggs’s reliance on the dismissal of several previously named defendants. It stated that an unfavorable ruling, by itself, does not justify appointing or recruiting counsel.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez denied the motion for appointment of counsel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.