govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_24-cv-01170-1

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 “Affidavit” and 
“Writ of Mandamus.”  (Docket Nos. 93, 97.)   
Mejia filed an unsworn document titled “Affidavit” in which he makes various 
requests that the Court will address in turn.  Mejia first seeks a jury trial.  Indeed, he is 
guaranteed the right to a jury should this matter proceed to trial.  This request is therefore 
moot.  He further asks that the Court appoint an investigator and order the investigator to 
depose a witness.  Discovery in this matter has closed; thus, the time to take depositions 
has passed.  Even so, t he Court does not appoint investigators.  This request is denied, as 
is Mejia’s other untimely discovery-related request that all depositions be recorded and that 
a court reporter be present.  Even if the request was timely, the Court does not oversee 
depositions.   
Also, Meija objects to the denial of his previous request to appoint counsel.  He 
provides no basis for his objection.  Moreover, the Court has repeatedly denied his requests 
for counsel, as described further below.  This request is denied.   
CASE 0:24-cv-01170-PAM-DLM     Doc. 104     Filed 06/02/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
Mejia additionally asks to be transported to a hearing on August 1, 2026.  However, 
there is no hearing or trial set for August 1, 2026.  Although this case is to be trial ready by 
that date, the Court has not set a trial date.  (See Docket No. 91 (explaining that the Pretrial 
Scheduling Order “sets a ready for trial date of August 1, 2026).)  Indeed, August 1 is a 
Saturday, and the Court is closed.  If a trial date is set in this matter, the Court will address 
transportation arrangements at that time. 
Mejia also files a “Writ of Mandamus.”  As an initial matter, Mejia provides no basis 
for the “writ” or any petition for the same, nor does the Court find any issuance of a writ 
appropriate here.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (a district court’s “jurisdiction of any action in the 
nature of mandamus” is limited to those “compel[ling] an officer or employee of the United 
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”)  Setting that aside, 
Mejia’s requests contained therein are meritless.  Mejia asks that the Court prosecute 
Defendants Ricardo Muro and the City of Minneapolis.  The Court does not prosecute.  
This request is denied.   
Finally, Mejia again asks that the Court appoint counsel on his behalf.  As the Court 
has repeatedly informed him in denying previous requests for counsel, there is no right to 
counsel in a civil matter.  (See Docket No. 56 at 1, Docket No. 75 at 1–2, Docket No. 78 at 
1–2, Docket No. 89 at 1–2, Docket No. 91.)  Likewise, as the Court has continually 
instructed Mejia, if this case proceeds to trial, he may renew his request for appointment 
of counsel at that time.  (See  Docket No. 56 at 2, Docket No. 75 at 2, Docket No. 78 at 2, 
Docket No. 89 at 2 –3.)  The Court will not depart from this conclusion or look kindly 
CASE 0:24-cv-01170-PAM-DLM     Doc. 104     Filed 06/02/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
toward yet another request to appoint counsel unless this matter is scheduled to proceed to 
trial.  Mejia’s request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus is denied.  
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Fernando Tello Mejia’s 
Affidavit (Docket No. 93) and Writ of Mandamus (Docket No. 97) are DENIED.   
Dated: June 2, 2026 
 
s/ Paul A. Magnuson   
Paul A. Magnuson 
United States District Court Judge 
 
CASE 0:24-cv-01170-PAM-DLM     Doc. 104     Filed 06/02/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight