Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

Pursuant to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (Section 1915), the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (defendant) developed a roster of all attorneys admitted to practice in the district who were in good standing. The district court used this list to appoint attorneys to provide pro bono representation of indigent clients in civil cases. In June 1987, Mr. Mallard (plaintiff), an attorney practicing in the district, was appointed to represent three current and former prison inmates who were suing prison guards and administrators for civil-rights violations during their incarceration. After he was appointed and reviewed the case, Mallard filed a motion to withdraw, arguing he had insufficient knowledge and experience to handle the case. In his motion, Mallard offered to serve on cases in his area of expertise, such as securities law and bankruptcy. The magistrate judge denied Mallard’s motion to withdraw, and Mallard appealed to the district court. In his appeal to the district court, Mallard argued that he did not like litigation and felt he did not have the training or temperament to be an effective litigator. The district court also denied Mallard’s motion, and Mallard filed a writ of mandamus with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals asking to compel the district court to allow him to withdraw from the case. After the court of appeals denied Mallard’s writ, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the appellate courts over compulsory attorney assignments in civil cases.