Carlden Trotter v. Walter Lawson, 636 F. App'x 371

Plaintiff Carlden Trotter, a Missouri inmate, sued corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation and a beating while handcuffed after an earlier altercation.
Trotter repeatedly moved for appointment of counsel, claiming indigence, institutional obstacles to investigation, and inability to present his case to a jury; the district court denied those motions earlier in the case.
At trial, after adverse rulings on evidence and witnesses, Trotter renewed his request for counsel and said he would not proceed without a lawyer. Defendants orally moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The district court treated Trotter’s refusal to proceed as grounds to grant the defendants’ motion and dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, also denying further appointment of counsel.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit considered both the denial of counsel and the Rule 41(b) dismissal and concluded the district court abused its discretion on both grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying appointment of counsel	Trotter: indigent, institutional constraints, needs counsel to present evidence and question witnesses	Defendants: case not complex; Trotter capable of proceeding pro se; denial not reviewable separately	Reversed: district court abused its discretion; under the circumstances (difficulty obtaining/presenting evidence and lack of skills to try the case) counsel should be appointed
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute with prejudice was proper	Trotter: refusal to proceed flowed from lack of counsel and inability to present case; court should have given warning or lesser sanctions (e.g., continuance, dismissal without prejudice)	Defendants: Trotter’s unwillingness to proceed justified Rule 41(b) dismissal	Reversed: dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion because court did not consider lesser sanctions or expressly warn Trotter that dismissal with prejudice would follow

DuBose v. State of Minn., 893 F.2d 169 (8th Cir. 1990) (discusses reviewability concerns for interlocutory orders)
DiMercurio v. Malcom, 716 F.3d 1138 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for review of Rule 41(b) dismissals)
Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 203 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2000) (courts must weigh docket management against extinguishing claims and consider lesser sanctions)
Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard and factors for appointing counsel in civil rights cases)
Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801 (8th Cir. 1986) (courts should seriously consider appointment when indigent plaintiff states a colorable claim)
Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700 (8th Cir. 1992) (factors showing plaintiff’s inability to present case without counsel)
Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1991) (similar guidance on appointment of counsel)
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319 (8th Cir. 1986) (consideration of plaintiff’s capacity to present evidence and trial skills)
Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663 (8th Cir. 1985) (appointment of counsel appropriate where pro se litigant cannot adequately present case)