Menze v. Astera Health
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03901
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Menze v. Astera Health, Judge Menendez denied requests to compel an answer and schedule hearings, while addressing counsel and travel concerns.
Ali K. Menze, who was representing herself, and Astera Health, formerly known as Tri-County Health Care.
What happened
In Menze v. Astera Health, Ali K. Menze asked the court to require Astera Health to answer her complaint instead of filing a motion to dismiss. She also asked about holding proceedings in Fergus Falls, getting a lawyer, and scheduling hearings on motions that had not been filed.
The court denied the request to require an answer because a defendant’s motion under Rule 12(b) delays the deadline for answering until after the court rules on that motion. The court said it would try to avoid unnecessary long-distance travel and would read Menze’s filings generously because she was representing herself. It also explained that civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed lawyer.
Judge Katherine Menendez denied the request to schedule hearings because no such motions were before the court, and merely asking for hearings in the complaint was insufficient. This order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Menze v. Astera Health · No. 0:23-cv-03901
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
On February 9, 2024, Ali K. Menze filed a letter raising procedural issues and asking the court to address requests in her complaint’s requested relief. Menze was litigating without a lawyer. The defendant, Astera Health, formerly known as Tri-County Health Care, had filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
Requests Concerning an Answer
Menze argued that Astera Health’s motion to dismiss was a waste of the court’s time and procedurally improper. She contended that Astera Health should have filed an answer to the complaint and asked the court to require an answer within fourteen days.
The court denied that request. It explained that when a defendant files a motion to dismiss before answering under Rule 12(b), including a motion challenging fewer than all claims, the deadline to answer is extended until after the court rules on the motion.
Travel and Counsel
Menze referred to her request that in-person proceedings be held at the federal courthouse in Fergus Falls to reduce hardship from travel. The court said it would try, whenever possible, to avoid requiring her to travel long distances unnecessarily for in-person appearances.
The court also noted that Menze was representing herself and would read her pleadings generously. It explained, however, that unlike a criminal defendant, a person in a civil case does not have a constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed lawyer. The opinion refers to a statute allowing a court to request an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel, but it does not appoint counsel in this order.
Requests for Hearings
Menze’s complaint requested a hearing on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, and preliminary or permanent injunctive relief. To the extent her letter asked the court to schedule those hearings, the court denied the request because none of those motions was currently before it. The court stated that merely including the request in the complaint was insufficient to raise the issue.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez denied Menze’s request to require Astera Health to file an answer and denied her request to schedule hearings on motions that were not before the court. The order did not resolve the merits of Menze’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.