Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01191_de97> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01191_de97 RegisterActionDate "2018-05-02" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01191_de97 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 5/2/18. Plaintiff files 72 , an amended motion for recruitment of pro bono counsel. Plaintiff submits several declination letters to support that he attempted to receive counsel on his own. Several of the letters, however, are from 2014 and 2015, several years prior to Plaintiff filing suit in this case. In addition, the letter from the Denton Firm appears to be an explanation of settlement in another case. While Plaintiff documents some attempt to obtain counsel on his own, the Court does not possess the authority to require an attorney to accept pro bono appointments on civil cases such as this. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). In determining whether the Court should attempt to find an attorney to voluntarily take a case, the question is whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial. Pruitt at 655. Here, Plaintiff asserts various inhumane conditions of confinement of which he has direct, first-hand knowledge. In addition, he is able to prosecute his case filing motions for continuance, and four motions to compel, which have met with some success. 72 is DENIED. (SKR, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01191_de97 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01191_de97 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01191_de96 @default.