Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:17-cv-04306_de49> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04306_de49 RegisterActionDate "2018-03-20" @default.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04306_de49 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 3/20/2018. Plaintiff's motion to request counsel 41 is DENIED. As the Court has previously explained to Plaintiff, 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 case-factually and legally-exceeds 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 appears capable of reading and writing English. In addition, Plaintiff has prepared discovery to be served upon Defendants in order to prosecute his case. Furthermore, Plaintiff's claims are not so novel or complex that he cannot litigate it himself. Plaintiff has personal knowledge of the facts supporting his claims and appears capable of cross-examining Defendants regarding their version of the events. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff appears competent to litigate this case himself at this stage of the proceedings, and therefore, the Court denies his motion for counsel. (KE, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04306_de49 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04306_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:17-cv-04306_de45 @default.