Markham v. Tolbert
- Susan Nelson
- 0:22-cv-00187
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Markham v. Tolbert, Judge Leung denied Oji Konata Markham’s request for a Pro Se Project lawyer without prejudice and ordered a guidebook.
Oji Konata Markham’s request for a Pro Se Project referral was denied without prejudice; his remaining unlawful-arrest claim was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Markham v. Tolbert, Oji Konata Markham, who is representing himself, asked the court to refer him to the Pro Se Project, which connects unrepresented people with volunteer lawyers. He did not explain why a referral was needed.
The court found that Markham had shown he could present his position and understood basic court procedures. It also found that the remaining unlawful-arrest claim did not involve unusually complex facts or law. The court directed the Clerk to give Markham the court’s guidebook for people representing themselves and said he may renew a request for a lawyer if the case reaches trial.
Judge Leung denied the motion for a Pro Se Project referral without prejudice. The order did not end Markham’s remaining claim.
The detailed version
- Markham v. Tolbert · No. 0:22-cv-00187
- Susan Nelson
- Mar. 16, 2023
Background
Oji Konata Markham, who is representing himself, moved for a referral to the District of Minnesota’s Pro Se Project. The project connects unrepresented individuals with volunteer lawyers. Markham had previously asked the court to appoint counsel, but that request was denied because he had not shown that counsel was warranted, the remaining unlawful-arrest claim was not unusually complex, and he appeared able to investigate the facts and explain his claims.
The earlier report and recommendation was later adopted, leaving one claim: an unlawful-arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against A. Tolbert, B. Miller, C. Glirbas, Officer 193, S. Hilyar, and M. Shepard.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied factors concerning the factual and legal complexity of the case, the plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present his claims, and whether the case involved conflicting testimony. It found that Markham’s filings showed an ability to explain his position and a basic understanding of court procedures. The court also found that the issues were no more complex than those in other civil-rights cases routinely filed in that court.
Because Markham again did not explain why a referral was warranted, the court concluded that a Pro Se Project referral was not warranted at that time.
Ruling
Judge Leung ordered that Markham’s motion for a referral to the Pro Se Project, ECF No. 27, was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk was ordered to provide Markham with a copy of the court’s Pro Se Civil Guidebook. The court stated that Markham may renew a request for appointment of counsel if the case proceeds to trial.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.