Cox v. Commissioner Of Department of Human Services
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-01776
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Judge Leung granted fee-free filing, ordered service, and denied counsel without prejudice.
Samuel I. Cox, the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services, and the two unidentified Department of Human Services mailroom defendants were affected. Cox’s fee-free filing application was granted, service was ordered, and his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services concerns Samuel I. Cox’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and his request for appointed counsel. The order also addressed service on the Commissioner and two unidentified mailroom defendants in their official capacities with Minnesota’s Department of Human Services.
The court granted Cox’s fee-free filing application and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court explained that Cox could amend the complaint to identify the individuals if he sought to sue them personally, either immediately or after discovery.
Judge Tony N. Leung denied Cox’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice. Judge Leung found that Cox appeared able to present his claims and that appointing counsel would not presently substantially benefit Cox or the court.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Commissioner Of Department of Human Services · No. 0:21-cv-01776
- Susan Nelson
- Dec. 13, 2021
Background
Samuel I. Cox applied to proceed without paying the required filing fees and asked the court to appoint a lawyer. His complaint named the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services, an unidentified mailroom supervisor, and an unidentified mailroom employee. The order states that these defendants were sued in their official capacities with the State of Minnesota.
Rulings
The court granted Cox’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the three named defendants under Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs service on state governments and their agencies or officials.
The court noted that, if Cox seeks to sue any defendants in their individual capacities, he must amend the complaint and specifically identify those individuals. The court stated that he could seek amendment immediately if he knows their names, or later if he needs discovery to identify them.
The court denied Cox’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice. Applying factors including the case’s factual and legal complexity, Cox’s ability to present his claims, and whether counsel would benefit Cox or the court, Judge Tony N. Leung found that Cox appeared able to explain his claims and positions and that appointing counsel would not presently provide substantial benefit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.