Aery v. Lewis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-00012
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Aery v. Lewis, Judge Thorson denied James Paul Aery’s request for a Pro Se Project referral or appointed counsel in his civil-rights case.
James Paul Aery’s request for a referral to the Federal Bar Association Pro Se Project and for appointment of counsel was denied; the opinion does not resolve the underlying assault claims.
What happened
In Aery v. Lewis, James Paul Aery asked the court to refer him to the Federal Bar Association Pro Se Project because he expected difficulty obtaining discovery and reviewing digital information. His claims involve an alleged assault under federal civil-rights law.
The court explained that people representing themselves in civil cases do not automatically have a right to a lawyer. A judge may appoint counsel when both the person and the court would substantially benefit, considering factors such as the case’s complexity and the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims.
The court found that Aery’s claims did not involve complex facts or legal issues and that he could investigate the facts and explain his claims. Judge Becky R. Thorson therefore denied his request for both a Pro Se Project referral and appointment of counsel.
The detailed version
- Aery v. Lewis · No. 0:22-cv-00012
- Katherine Menendez
- June 9, 2022
Background
James Paul Aery, who was representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning an alleged assault against Deputy Nick Lewis, Deputy Kyle Beckwith, and unknown deputies, in their individual and official capacities. Aery submitted a letter asking the court to refer him to the Federal Bar Association Pro Se Project. He said he anticipated difficulty obtaining discovery and reviewing digital information.
A court referral to the Pro Se Project gives a self-represented litigant an opportunity to meet with a volunteer attorney, but it does not guarantee representation. The court also treated Aery’s request as seeking appointment of counsel.
Legal standard
The court stated that self-represented litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases. Appointment of counsel is discretionary. The relevant question is whether both the litigant and the court would benefit from counsel’s assistance. The court considered factors including the factual and legal complexity of the issues, the litigant’s ability to investigate the facts and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony existed.
The court also stated that it had no obligation to refer a self-represented litigant to the Pro Se Project.
Ruling
The court found that the facts pleaded in Aery’s amended complaint did not present complex factual or legal issues warranting appointment of counsel. It also found that Aery was able to investigate the facts and explain his claims to the court. Based on these considerations, the court found that the case did not warrant either a Pro Se Project referral or appointment of counsel.
The court denied Aery’s request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.