Kasso v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Leila Kasso filed two lawsuits and asked the court to appoint counsel, meaning a lawyer to represent her. She was proceeding without a lawyer. The first case names the Police Officers’ Federation of Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis, and the City of Minneapolis Police Department as defendants. The second names the City of Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis Police Department, and Eric Hagle as defendants.

The order states that both cases allege discrimination while Kasso was employed as a police officer with the City of Minneapolis. It also states that the allegations, claims, and requested relief appear largely the same, although the defendants differ somewhat.

Legal standard

The court explained that people in civil cases do not have an automatic constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request a lawyer for a person who cannot afford one. The court considers factors such as the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony is likely. The court has substantial discretion in making that decision.

Ruling

The court denied Kasso’s motions to appoint counsel without prejudice. Kasso’s motions asked for counsel “if possible” but did not explain why appointment was warranted. The court found that the cases were at their earliest stages and that Kasso had demonstrated a basic understanding of legal procedure, including filing motions to seek relief. The court also stated that nothing indicated she was otherwise unable to afford counsel. The court noted that her applications to proceed without paying filing fees had previously been denied without prejudice based on the financial information received.

The court directed the clerk to provide Kasso with the Court’s Pro Se Civil Guidebook, a resource for people representing themselves. It also stated that, by separate correspondence, it would refer Kasso to the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project. The order explained that the project tries to connect unrepresented people with volunteer lawyers who may agree to discuss their cases, but that no volunteer lawyer is required to provide assistance and no lawyer was appointed. The court suggested that Kasso might benefit from discussing whether to combine the two substantially overlapping cases into one lawsuit, but it did not order consolidation or dismissal of either case.