Jomo v. Kallis

Background

Kenyatta Jomo brought a civil-rights action against Warden Steve Kallis and other defendants. The opinion states that Jomo alleged he was housed in inhumane conditions at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. He also applied to proceed without paying filing fees and moved for appointment of counsel.

The magistrate judge ordered Jomo to file an amended pleading after finding that his original complaint did not allege enough facts to state a claim. Jomo’s first amended complaint did not add meaningful detail and instead appeared largely to be a motion to appoint counsel. The magistrate judge then referred Jomo to the Pro Se Project for consultation with a volunteer attorney and allowed him another opportunity to amend.

After Jomo did not file a new pleading by the deadline, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice. The recommendation addressed three problems: the Federal Medical Center and the United States Federal Hospital could not be sued under the type of claim discussed in the recommendation; the complaint did not plausibly allege that Warden Kallis was responsible for the conditions, and supervisor liability was not an available cause of action under that theory; and Jomo had not shown that the court had jurisdiction over any possible state-law claims.

Objections and amended complaint

Jomo objected to the recommendation. He said that, because of his travels outside the Federal Medical Center, he had lost his list of documents and several documents in the case file. The court treated this as a request for copies and directed the Clerk’s Office to mail him the identified filings and a copy of the docket sheet.

Jomo also objected to the recommendation’s denial of appointed counsel, chiefly because he was concerned about losing access to volunteer attorneys through the Pro Se Project. The court reviewed this issue independently and concluded that the motion could properly be denied at that time. It explained that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, although a court may request an attorney to represent someone unable to afford counsel. The court noted that the magistrate judge had already sought volunteer assistance through the Pro Se Project and that denying the motion would not prevent a possible future referral if Jomo initiated another case with more clearly stated claims.

Jomo filed a second amended complaint on June 3, 2022. The court found that it was not substantially different from the first amended complaint and did not resolve the problems identified in the recommendation.

Ruling

The court overruled Jomo’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The court’s explanation states that dismissal without prejudice did not bar Jomo from preparing a new complaint and starting a new case concerning his claims.

The court also denied Jomo’s applications to proceed without paying filing fees and his motion to appoint counsel. Finally, it directed the Clerk’s Office to mail Jomo copies of the filings listed in the order and the docket sheet. The order was signed by United States District Judge Katherine M. Menendez.