Moen v. State of Minnesota

Background

The court considered three motions filed by plaintiff Kevin Moen: a motion to amend his complaint, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion to continue prosecuting the case after a stay had been lifted.

Motion to Amend

The court granted Moen’s motion to amend. It explained that, at this stage of the litigation, Moen could amend once as a matter of course without asking the court for permission. The clerk was directed to redocket the proposed amended complaint as the amended complaint, making it the operative pleading.

The court then found that the amended complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint was 120 pages long and contained 248 paragraphs, not counting additional paragraphs in the request for relief. It asserted 19 causes of action against each of 14 defendants, while often failing to identify which defendant allegedly was responsible for which event or action. The court described this as an unclear, overlong “kitchen-sink” complaint.

Rather than recommend dismissal at that point, the court granted Moen leave to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint had to comply with Rule 8 and other relevant federal rules and had to be filed within 28 days of the order. The court stated that, if Moen failed to meet that deadline, it would recommend that the case be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 8.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Moen’s motion for appointment of counsel. It stated that a self-represented litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case, although the court has discretion to appoint counsel. The court concluded that appointment was not warranted because the claims were not yet clear and the immediate task—filing a new complaint identifying what happened, who was responsible, and what statutes were allegedly violated—was not unusually complex. The court also found that Moen had shown enough ability to present his allegations and claims without a lawyer.

Motion to Continue Prosecuting

The court granted Moen’s motion to continue prosecuting the case. Because substantial time had passed while the case was stayed, the court had required Moen to notify it that he intended to continue. The court explained that a formal motion was unnecessary, because any statement of intent would have sufficed, but it accepted Moen’s filing and declined to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

The motion to amend was granted; the proposed amended complaint was made the operative pleading; the motion to appoint counsel was denied; and the motion to prosecute was granted. The order did not dismiss the case. It required Moen to file a second amended complaint within 28 days and stated that failure to do so would result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice.