Mejia v. Muro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Fernando Tello Mejia, 	Civ. No. 24-1170 (PAM/DLM)
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER
Richard Muro and
City of Minneapolis,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Fernando Tello Mejia’s “Motion to Pass
Bar Under Controlling Interlocutory Appeals” and Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis on Appeal.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko has denied Plaintiff Fernando Tello Mejia’s
motions to appoint counsel three times. (Docket Nos. 56, 75, 78.) Mejia seeks to appeal
the most recent such decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Eighth
Circuit is without jurisdiction to hear his appeal at this stage of the proceedings. 	See
LeGear v. Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (dismissing plaintiff’s appeal of
magistrate judge’s decision denying motion for appointment of counsel for lack of
jurisdiction). Indeed, “[d]enial of appointment of counsel is a nondispositive matter, which
must be appealed to the district judge assigned to the case.” Larson v. Minnesota Dep’t of
Hum. Servs., Civ. No. 23-1823, 2025 WL 1745860, at *2 (D. Minn. June 24, 2025)
(Tunheim, J.) (citations omitted). 	Because Mejia is proceeding pro se, the Court will
liberally construe his appeal to the Eighth Circuit as an appeal to this Court.
CASE 0:24-cv-01170-PAM-DLM Doc. 86 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive issue
is extremely differential and the district court will overturn the decision only if it “is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 	Here, Judge Micko’s decision to
deny appointment of counsel for Mejia was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
As Judge Micko has repeatedly explained, there is no right to counsel in a civil
proceeding. (See, e.g., Docket No. 78 at 1–2.) The record demonstrates that Judge Micko
evaluated the factors that a court considers when determining whether to appoint counsel
to an indigent litigant, such as “the factual complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent
to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent to
present his claim and the complexity of the legal issues.” Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d
1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991). As Judge Micko found, none of those factors are present here.
(Docket No. 75 at 2.) 	Moreover, Judge Micko referred Mejia to the Federal Bar
Association’s Pro Se Project to align him with volunteer counsel, who assisted him through
and after a settlement conference. (Docket No. 55.) Mejia’s inability to find a lawyer to
represent him in the remainder of this matter does not change the analysis. Therefore, the
Court agrees with Judge Micko’s conclusions on this issue and determines that Mejia is not
entitled to the appointment of counsel.
CASE 0:24-cv-01170-PAM-DLM Doc. 86 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Fernando Tello Mejia’s “Motion to Pass Bar Under Controlling
Interlocutory Appeals” (Docket No. 82) is DENIED; and
2. 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Docket
No. 83) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.
Dated: February 17, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:24-cv-01170-PAM-DLM Doc. 86 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3