Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01241_de47> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01241_de47 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-09" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01241_de47 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER: Entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 6/9/2017. Plaintiff's renewed motion for counsel 38 is DENIED. 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). The most that the Court can do is to ask for volunteer counsel. Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)(holding that it is a "fundamental premise that indigent civil litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to be represented by counsel in federal court."). In determining whether the Court should attempt to find an attorney to voluntarily take a case, "the question is whether the difficulty of the casefactually and legallyexceeds the particular plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.... 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, 503 F.3d at 655 (emphasis in original). In other words, this inquiry is an individualized one based upon the record as a whole, the nature of the claims, and the plaintiff's ability to pursue his claims through all phases of the case, including discovery and trial. Navejar v. Iyioloa, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013). As the Seventh Circuit has acknowledged, "[a]lmost everyone would benefit from having a lawyer, but there are too many indigent litigants and too few lawyers willing and able to volunteer for these cases. DeWitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2014)(internal quotation omitted). Although the Seventh Circuit has held that appointment of counsel should occur in cases in which counsel would have made a difference in the outcome of the litigation (Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 465 (7th Cir. 2010)), the Seventh Circuit has also held that the test for appointment of counsel is not whether a lawyer could more effectively handle the case. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655. The test is whether the litigant is competent to litigate his own claims. Id. In the instant case, Plaintiff's claims have survived a merit review, and he has filed cogent pleadings with the Court. Furthermore, Plaintiff's claim is not so novel or complex that he cannot litigate them himself. Plaintiff has personal knowledge of the facts supporting his claim and appears capable of cross-examining Defendant regarding his version of the events. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has offered no reason why he cannot litigate this case or why his case differs from any other of the plethora of pro se plaintiffs who ask for the appointment of counsel in almost every case filed. DeWitt, 760 F.3d at 657-58. Plaintiff appears competent to litigate this case himself, and therefore, the Court denies his motion to appoint counsel. (LN, ilcd) (Entered: 06/09/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01241_de47 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01241_de47 hasJudgeReference SJ001510 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01241_de47 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01241_de45 @default.