Kasso v. Police Officers' Federation of Minneapolis

Background

Leila Kasso, who was representing herself, filed motions asking the court to appoint counsel in both actions. 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 court noted that both actions allege discrimination while Kasso was employed as a police officer with the City of Minneapolis. Although the defendants differ somewhat, the allegations, claims, and requested relief appear largely the same. The court also noted that Kasso’s applications to proceed without paying filing fees had previously been denied without prejudice based on the financial information received.

Legal standard

The court explained that people in civil cases generally have no constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. Relevant considerations include 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 applying these factors.

Court’s analysis

Kasso’s motions asked the court to appoint counsel “if possible,” but she 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 found that nothing indicated she was otherwise unable to afford counsel, considering the financial information submitted with her fee-waiver applications.

The court nevertheless recognized the cost of litigation and stated that Kasso might benefit from legal advice about whether to combine the two overlapping actions by filing one amended complaint and voluntarily dismissing the other action. The court cautioned that a volunteer lawyer might decline to consult with her and that no lawyer was required to consult with her or be appointed.

Disposition

Judge Tony N. Leung denied Kasso’s motions to appoint counsel in both cases without prejudice. The court directed the clerk to provide Kasso with the Court’s Pro Se Civil Guidebook and stated that it would separately refer her to the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project, which tries to connect unrepresented people with volunteer lawyers who may agree to discuss their cases.