Mark Franklin, Jr. v. William Bolin, David Spets, and Daniel Hickey
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-04330
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Franklin v. Bolin, Magistrate Judge Foster denied plaintiff Mark Franklin, Jr.'s request to have a lawyer appointed to represent him for free in his civil case, finding the case is not complex enough to require appointed counsel, but referred him to a voluntary legal assistance program.
Mark Franklin, Jr., a self-represented (pro se) plaintiff in a federal civil lawsuit, who sought free court-appointed legal representation and was denied, but was referred to a voluntary free legal consultation program.
What happened
In Franklin v. Bolin (Case No. 25-cv-4330), plaintiff Mark Franklin, Jr. asked the federal court to appoint a lawyer to represent him at no cost, arguing his case is complicated and that he has limited access to legal resources and case management tools. The defendants are William Bolin, David Spets, and Daniel Hickey.
Under federal law, there is no automatic right to a free, court-appointed lawyer in civil (non-criminal) cases. Courts have the discretion to appoint one based on factors such as how factually and legally complex the case is, whether the person can investigate the facts, whether there is conflicting testimony, and whether the person is able to present their own arguments. The court considered all of these factors in Mr. Franklin's situation.
Magistrate Judge Foster denied Mr. Franklin's motion, concluding that neither the facts nor the legal issues in his case are especially complex, and that his prior filings show he can present arguments clearly and with adequate support. The court noted that limited resources alone do not justify appointment of counsel, since many people representing themselves share that situation. However, the court did refer Mr. Franklin to the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, a voluntary program where he may be able to consult with a volunteer attorney at no charge.
The detailed version
In Franklin v. Bolin, Case No. 25-cv-4330 (KMM/DJF), United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued an order on February 23, 2025, denying plaintiff Mark Franklin, Jr.'s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 15).
Background and Motion
Mr. Franklin, who is representing himself (a 'pro se' litigant), moved the court to appoint counsel on his behalf, citing the complexity of his case and his limited access to legal and case management resources. His suit is brought against defendants William Bolin, David Spets, and Daniel Hickey.
Legal Standard
The court noted that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. See Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). The decision rests in the court's discretion. The Eighth Circuit (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Minnesota) has identified five factors for courts to weigh: (1) the factual complexity of the issues; (2) the ability of the indigent (low-income) person to investigate the facts; (3) the existence of conflicting testimony; (4) the ability of the indigent person to present their claims; and (5) the complexity of the legal arguments. Crozier v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist., 973 F.3d 882, 889 (8th Cir. 2020).
Court's Analysis
Judge Foster found that appointment of counsel was not warranted at this stage. The court determined that neither the factual nor legal issues in the case are particularly complex. The court also found that Mr. Franklin has demonstrated the ability to investigate facts and present arguments, pointing to his existing filings (ECF Nos. 1, 15, 16) as evidence of reasonable clarity and adequate factual and legal support — even though not all his motions were successful. The court further noted that limited financial resources alone do not distinguish Mr. Franklin's situation from the many other pro se litigants in the same position.
Referral to Pro Se Project
Although the motion was denied, the court referred Mr. Franklin to the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. This is a voluntary program through which he may be able to speak with a volunteer attorney for a free consultation about his case. Participation is not required, and the availability of a volunteer attorney is not guaranteed. The court stated it would send Mr. Franklin a separate letter with more details about the program.
Disposition
Motion to Appoint Counsel denied. Referral to Pro Se Project ordered.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.