Markham v. Tolbert
- Susan Nelson
- 0:22-cv-00187
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Markham v. Tolbert, Judge Thorson denied Oji Konata Markham’s request for appointed counsel because his remaining claim was not complex.
Oji Konata Markham’s request for appointed counsel was denied, so he remained responsible for presenting his claims without appointed counsel. The order did not decide the merits of his remaining unlawful-arrest claim.
What happened
In Markham v. Tolbert, Oji Konata Markham, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He offered no reason beyond his lack of a lawyer.
The court explained that people representing themselves in civil cases generally do not have an automatic right to appointed counsel. It reviewed the remaining unlawful-arrest claim under the federal civil-rights law known as Section 1983 and found that the factual and legal issues were not complex and that Markham could investigate and explain his claims.
Judge Becky R. Thorson denied Markham’s motion to appoint counsel. The order does not decide the merits of the unlawful-arrest claim.
The detailed version
- Markham v. Tolbert · No. 0:22-cv-00187
- Susan Nelson
- Aug. 3, 2022
Background
Oji Konata Markham, representing himself, moved for appointment of counsel. He did not explain why appointment was warranted other than stating that he was representing himself. His lawsuit asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against officers, attorneys, judges, and other defendants connected to his criminal proceedings.
The court noted that it had already recommended dismissing many defendants and allowing only one claim—an unlawful-arrest claim under Section 1983 against one group of defendants—to proceed. The order on the motion to appoint counsel did not itself resolve that claim.
Legal standard
The court stated that people representing themselves in civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Appointment is discretionary. The relevant question was whether both Markham and the court would substantially benefit from counsel. The court considered factors including the factual and legal complexity of the case, Markham’s ability to investigate the facts, whether testimony might conflict, and his ability to present his claims.
Ruling
The court found that the facts Markham pleaded about the remaining claim did not present complex factual or legal issues requiring appointed counsel. It also found that Markham was able to investigate the facts and explain his claims to the court. The court therefore denied Markham’s motion to appoint counsel.
Effect of the order
No lawyer was appointed for Markham through this motion. The order addressed only appointment of counsel and did not decide whether Markham would ultimately prevail on the unlawful-arrest claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.