Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:17-cv-01023_de36> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01023_de36 RegisterActionDate "2018-07-06" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01023_de36 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 7/6/2018. Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel. 28 Plaintiff has demonstrated some attempt to find counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Court must consider 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. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655; see also Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff alleges IDOC doctors were deliberately indifferent when they denied any treatment for Plaintiffs back pain due to compression fractures since April of 2013, and denied hip replacement surgery. See October 2, 2017 Case Management Order. Plaintiff says he has a high school education and no legal training. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs amended complaint clearly and coherently set for his surviving allegations with specific dates referencing both medical care received, and attempts to receive additional care. See October 2, 2017 Case Management Order. Plaintiff also fully participated in a hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 demonstrating an understanding of his claims. See April 11, 2018 Minute Entry. Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel also cites to relevant case law in support of his motion. 28 . In addition, the Court has recently entered a scheduling order in this case with important information to assist a pro se litigant and detailing specific, initial discovery which must be provided to Plaintiff. See April 11, 2018 Scheduling Order. Plaintiff will therefore be able to obtain his medical records and Plaintiff should be able to testify personally to the pain he experienced, his attempts to obtain help, and the responses he received, which can be used to show evidence of deliberate indifference. See Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 1997)(expert testimony not necessarily required to establish deliberate indifference). Finally, Plaintiff admits he has declined parole, and instead, Plaintiff chose to stay incarcerated because he believes IDOC should first address his health concerns. (Plain. Mot., p. 11). Plaintiff has made the decision to remain incarcerated and therefore, Plaintiff has chosen whatever limitations incarceration adds to his ability to obtain counsel and litigate his case. Plaintiffs motion is denied based on the record before the Court. 28 . (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01023_de36 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01023_de36 hasJudgeReference SJ001502 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01023_de36 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01023_de35 @default.