Mejia v. Richard Muro and City of Minneapolis
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-01170
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Fernando Tello Mejia v. Richard Muro and City of Minneapolis, Judge Magnuson denied plaintiff Mejia's attempt to appeal a magistrate judge's repeated refusals to appoint him a free lawyer, finding no error in those refusals and ruling that any such appeal must go to the district court rather than the federal appeals court.
Pro se (self-represented) civil litigants seeking court-appointed counsel, particularly in the District of Minnesota. This ruling confirms that denials of appointed counsel by a magistrate judge must be appealed to the district court judge, not directly to the circuit court of appeals, and that the standard for obtaining appointed counsel in civil cases remains difficult to meet.
What happened
In Fernando Tello Mejia v. Richard Muro and City of Minneapolis (Case No. 24-1170), plaintiff Fernando Tello Mejia, who is representing himself, sued Richard Muro and the City of Minneapolis. A magistrate judge (Judge Douglas L. Micko) had denied Mejia's requests for court-appointed counsel three separate times. Mejia tried to appeal the most recent denial directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court explained that the Eighth Circuit lacks the power to hear an appeal of a magistrate judge's decision denying court-appointed counsel at this stage of the case — that type of appeal must first go to the district court judge, not the appeals court. Because Mejia is representing himself, the court generously treated his misdirected appeal as if it had been filed with the correct court (the district court). The court then reviewed Judge Micko's decisions under a highly deferential standard, meaning it would only reverse them if they were clearly wrong or violated the law.
Judge Magnuson found that Judge Micko's repeated denials of counsel were neither clearly wrong nor unlawful. The court noted there is no legal right to a free lawyer in a civil (non-criminal) case, and that Judge Micko had properly considered the relevant factors — including the complexity of the facts, Mejia's ability to investigate and present his case, and the complexity of the legal issues — and found none of them weighed in favor of appointing counsel. The court also noted that Judge Micko had already connected Mejia with a volunteer lawyer through a legal assistance program. As a result, Judge Magnuson denied Mejia's motion and also denied, without prejudice (meaning it can be refiled at the appropriate time), Mejia's request to proceed without paying court fees on appeal, finding that request premature.
The detailed version
Case: Fernando Tello Mejia v. Richard Muro and City of Minneapolis, Civ. No. 24-1170 (PAM/DLM), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Decision by Judge Paul A. Magnuson, dated February 17, 2026.
Background
Plaintiff Fernando Tello Mejia, proceeding pro se (representing himself without an attorney), brought a civil lawsuit against defendants Richard Muro and the City of Minneapolis. The specific underlying claims are not described in this opinion. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko denied Mejia's motions to appoint counsel on three occasions (Docket Nos. 56, 75, and 78). Mejia filed a 'Motion to Pass Bar Under Controlling Interlocutory Appeals' (an interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a ruling made during a case before the case is fully decided) and an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (a request to waive filing fees based on inability to pay), seeking to appeal Judge Micko's most recent denial of counsel to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Jurisdictional Issue
The court first addressed whether the Eighth Circuit had jurisdiction (legal authority) to hear Mejia's appeal at this stage. Citing LeGear v. Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 37 (8th Cir. 1995), the court held that the Eighth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over such an appeal. A denial of appointment of counsel is a 'nondispositive' matter (a ruling that does not end the case), which under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) must be appealed to the district judge assigned to the case, not directly to the circuit court of appeals. Because Mejia is pro se, the court liberally construed his filing — treating his attempted appeal to the Eighth Circuit as an appeal to the district court.
Standard of Review
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a district court reviews a magistrate judge's nondispositive rulings under a 'clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard — a highly deferential standard that favors upholding the magistrate judge's decision absent a definite error.
Merits of the Counsel Denial
The court affirmed Judge Micko's denials. Key points: - There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil proceeding. - Judge Micko evaluated the relevant factors from Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991): factual complexity of the case, the plaintiff's ability to investigate facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the plaintiff's ability to present his claim, and the complexity of the legal issues. Judge Micko found none of these factors favored appointment. - Judge Micko had also referred Mejia to the Federal Bar Association's Pro Se Project, through which a volunteer attorney assisted Mejia through and after a settlement conference. - The fact that Mejia was unable to find a lawyer willing to represent him for the remainder of the case did not change the analysis.
Orders
1. Mejia's 'Motion to Pass Bar Under Controlling Interlocutory Appeals' (Docket No. 82) — DENIED. 2. Mejia's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Docket No. 83) — DENIED without prejudice as premature (meaning it was too early to rule on it, and Mejia may refile if and when an appealable issue arises).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.