Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02777/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02777-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2777

___________

John Dasta, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Bobby Shearin; Gary Richards; Kathy * District of Minnesota.

Jones; Harley G. Lappin; Isam Elayan; *

Dr. Moubarek; Dr. Leonardo F. Giron; * [UNPUBLISHED]

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. *

___________

Submitted: July 12, 2007

Filed: July 27, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-2777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334293
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-

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.

Appellate Case: 06-2777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334293