Graham v. Koenig
- Douglas Micko
- 0:23-cv-00263
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Graham v. Koenig, Judge Micko denied Alonzo J. Graham’s motion for appointed counsel without prejudice and directed him to the court’s self-represented-litigant guide.
Alonzo J. Graham’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice. He was directed to follow the court’s procedural rules and receive the Pro Se Civil Guidebook; he may renew the request if the case goes to trial.
What happened
In Graham v. Koenig, self-represented plaintiff Alonzo J. Graham asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He cited waiting lists for the correctional facility’s law library and materials, difficulty gathering evidence and expert witnesses, confusion about the process, and medication affecting his mental functioning.
The court found no record that Graham had first tried and failed to obtain a lawyer. It also found that he still had access to the law library and materials and had not specifically identified discovery he needed but could not obtain. The court said it could not give him legal advice and reminded him that self-represented parties must follow court rules.
Judge Micko denied Graham’s motion for appointed counsel without prejudice. The clerk was directed to provide Graham with the court’s guide for self-represented civil litigants, and Graham may renew his request if the case proceeds to trial.
The detailed version
- Graham v. Koenig · No. 0:23-cv-00263
- Douglas L. Micko
- June 13, 2023
Background
Alonzo J. Graham, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for appointed counsel and also sent a May 29, 2023 letter to the court. Graham said that waiting lists limited his access to the law library and its materials at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City. He also said he could not gather evidence, investigate the case, or obtain expert witnesses, and that he was confused about the process and took medication affecting his mental functioning.
Legal standard
The court explained that parties in civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may ask a lawyer to represent a party when the circumstances justify that request. Before doing so, the court must determine that an indigent plaintiff made a good-faith effort to retain counsel and was unsuccessful. The court also considers factors such as the case’s factual and legal complexity, the party’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether testimony may conflict.
Court’s reasoning
The court found no record that Graham had tried to obtain counsel and was unsuccessful, so it could not find that he had made the required good-faith effort. The court also noted that Graham still had access to the law library and its materials. Although he said he could not investigate the facts or obtain expert witnesses, he did not specifically identify discovery he needed or explain why he could not obtain it.
The court stated that Graham could formally ask to modify a deadline by showing good cause under the applicable federal and local rules. It also explained that the court cannot give legal advice, including to a party representing himself. Graham remained required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Minnesota’s local rules.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to provide Graham with the court’s Pro Se Civil Guidebook. It stated that Graham may renew his request for appointed counsel if the case goes to trial. Judge Douglas L. Micko ordered that Graham’s Motion for Appointed Counsel, Doc. 28, was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.