Purdy v. Community Correction
8:21-cv-00134
| D. Neb. | Jan 6, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Anthony P. Purdy filed a lengthy handwritten Amended Complaint that the court found noncompliant with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10.
- On December 2, 2021, the court ordered Purdy to file a Second Amended Complaint on a court-provided standard form within 30 days.
- Purdy submitted a motion dated December 14, 2021 (received January 5, 2022) requesting a time extension and appointment of counsel/assistance as an ADA accommodation.
- The motion was mailed from the institution on January 3, 2022; the court treated it as timely for consideration of an extension request.
- The court granted a 30-day extension (deadline February 2, 2022) to file the Second Amended Complaint and warned that failure to comply will result in dismissal.
- The court denied appointment of counsel and ADA/ Rehabilitation Act-based requests for legal representation, concluding the case is not legally or factually complex and that federal courts are not subject to Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extension of time to file Second Amended Complaint | Seeks additional time to prepare and submit the court form | No opposing argument in record | Granted 30-day extension (new deadline Feb 2, 2022); failure to comply -> dismissal |
| Appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) | Requests appointed counsel to assist with pleading and litigation | No opposing argument; court evaluates statutory standards and discretion | Denied — court declines to request counsel; case not sufficiently complex and plaintiff can present claims if he makes an effort |
| Appointment of counsel as ADA Title II accommodation | Requests counsel as an accommodation for disability under Title II of the ADA | Federal courts are not "public entities" subject to Title II; no duty to provide counsel | Denied — federal courts not covered by Title II or Rehabilitation Act for this purpose; ADA does not require courts to appoint counsel |
| Compliance with Rules 8 and 10 / requirement to file on court form | Amended Complaint was lengthy and handwritten | Court previously found it noncompliant and provided a form with instructions | Court reaffirmed need for a short, plain statement on the provided form; motion otherwise denied without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases)
- Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court has discretion to request counsel for indigent civil litigants)
- Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 1996) (factors to consider when deciding to request counsel)
- In re Sheridan, 362 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2004) (federal courts are not a "program or activity" covered by the Rehabilitation Act)
- Douris v. New Jersey, [citation="500 F. App'x 98"] (3d Cir. 2012) (ADA does not require courts to provide legal counsel to persons with disabilities)