Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 RegisterActionDate "2017-10-27" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ONLY ORDER: On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff B362781 filed what is docketed as her Response 35 to Defendants' Motions 30 32 for Summary Judgment. However, rather than responding to each statement of material fact in Defendants' Motions, Plaintiff's Response states for the first time that she is unable to adequately respond to the Motions because her disability prevents her from typing. Additionally, Plaintiff states that she is unable to find an attorney to represent her, and alleges that Defendants have failed to turn over requested discovery. First, the Court will construe Plaintiff's Response 35 as a renewed request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. In addition, the Court cannot require an attorney to accept pro bono appointment in a civil case. The most the Court can do is ask for volunteer counsel. See Jackson v. County of B362781, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992). In considering Plaintiff's request, the Court must ask two questions: "(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?" Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007), citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993). Here, despite the instruction on the form for motions to request counsel, Plaintiff has twice failed to attach documentation showing that he has asked several attorneys to represent her in this case. Further, a review of the docket indicates that Plaintiff's claims are relatively simple and she has thus far competently litigated her case. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. Second, Plaintiff's vague assertions that she has been denied discovery are unsupported by the record in this case. Although Plaintiff does not indicate what discovery she believes she was denied, the docket reflects that Defendants Motion 29 for Protective Order was granted after Plaintiff failed to respond. Finally, although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's medical conditions, a review of the docket in this case once again indicates that Plaintiff has previously been able to draft extensive typewritten documents and discovery requests and responses. The Court will nevertheless accommodate Plaintiff's medical condition by allowing her additional time to file a response. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: the Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to STRIKE Plaintiff's Response 35 . Plaintiff is GRANTED leave of court to re-file separate responses to each of Defendants' Motions 30 32 for Summary Judgment on or before 11/17/2017. The responses must conform with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 7.1(D)(2). The Court cautions Plaintiff that a failure to properly respond to any numbered fact will be deemed an admission of that fact. Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b)(6). Defendants' reply briefs remain due 14 days after Plaintiff files her responses. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 10/27/2017. (SJP, ilcd) (Entered: 10/27/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 hasJudgeReference SJ001502 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de40 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de43 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de45 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01501_de48 @default.