John Dasta v. Bobby Shearin, No. 06-2777 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for appointment of counsel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-2777 ___________ John Dasta, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Bobby Shearin; Gary Richards; Kathy * Jones; Harley G. Lappin; Isam Elayan; * Dr. Moubarek; Dr. Leonardo F. Giron; * Lori Sines; Mr. Poisinaire; W. I. * Leblanc, Jr.; Bernie Richards; Jorge * Castenada; John Ashcroft; Todd * Genzer; Julie Hayes; Thomas B. * Heffelfinger; Dr. R. Ilvedson; * Howard Nelson; Alicia R. * Souvignier; Unknown U.S. * Marshals, In their official and * individual capacities, * * Appellees. * Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: July 12, 2007 Filed: July 27, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal following remand, federal inmate John Dasta appeals the district court s1 denial without prejudice of his motion for appointment of counsel. We review such a ruling for abuse of discretion. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (there is no statutory or constitutional right to counsel in civil cases). We find no abuse of discretion here: Dasta s assertions as to why he required counsel were conclusory, and the magistrate judge s report and district court s order reflect consideration of appropriate factors. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 476 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting need for district court record to reveal whether district court exercised well-informed and reasoned discretion); Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794 (discussing factors). We note that by the time the district court adopted the magistrate judge s report, defendants had moved for summary judgment, raising somewhat complex legal issues (e.g., qualified immunity); and that the filings the district court referenced as reflecting Dasta s ability to represent himself were prepared by an inmate who was then helping Dasta but who is no longer doing so, at least according to Dasta s reply brief. Nonetheless, Dasta s statements that preceded the district court s ruling made unclear whether he still sought appointed counsel. Moreover, the denial of counsel is without prejudice to Dasta s right to renew his request as the case progresses. See Nelson, 476 F.3d at 636. As to Dasta s assertions of judicial bias, they are based solely on rulings adverse to him. Cf. Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir. 1998) (recusal motion cannot rest solely on adverse rulings). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Dasta s pending motion for injunctive relief, and to the extent he properly moved for appointed counsel on appeal by including such a request in his initial and amended notices of appeal, we deny that motion as well. 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
