Latimer v. Schnell
- Dulce Foster
- 0:23-cv-00190
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Latimer v. Schnell, Judge Foster ordered service and fee payments but denied Latimer’s motion for appointed counsel.
Mark Latimer, Paul Schnell, William Bolin, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court, and the institution where Latimer is confined.
What happened
In Latimer v. Schnell, Mark Latimer had satisfactorily paid the initial partial filing fee required to proceed without paying the full fee at once. The court’s order does not describe the underlying claims.
The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Paul Schnell and William Bolin in their official capacities. It also required Latimer to pay the remaining $150 filing fee through deductions handled under federal law, with notice sent to the institution where he is confined.
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Latimer’s motion for appointment of counsel. The judge said it was not yet clear that a lawyer would substantially help Latimer or the court, but stated that the court could reconsider the request later if circumstances changed.
The detailed version
- Latimer v. Schnell · No. 0:23-cv-00190
- Dulce J. Foster
- Apr. 12, 2023
Background
Mark Latimer sued Paul Schnell and William Bolin in their official capacities. The order does not describe the claims in the amended complaint. It states that the matter had survived the initial review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Latimer had applied to proceed without paying the entire filing fee at the outset and had satisfactorily paid the required initial partial filing fee.
Orders on service and fees
The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Schnell and Bolin, in their official capacities as agents of the State of Minnesota, under Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also ordered Latimer to pay the remaining $150 of the statutory filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Clerk of Court was directed to notify the authorities at the institution where Latimer is confined about that payment requirement.
Appointment of counsel
The court denied Latimer’s motion for appointment of counsel. It explained that a self-represented party generally has no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case, and that appointment is left to the district court’s discretion. The court found that it was not yet clear whether counsel would benefit Latimer or the court, particularly because the defenses to the amended complaint were not yet known. The court stated that it would reconsider the request on its own if later circumstances warranted it.
Disposition
The order denied the motion for appointment of counsel and directed service and payment-related steps to continue. It did not decide the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.