White v. Godinez et al
Filing
75
OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 07/22/2013. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff's renewed motion for the appointment of counsel is denied at this stage of the proceedings. 58 2) The court will allow the Plaintiff additional time if he wishes to supplement his response to the pending motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff must file any additional response on or before August 12, 2013. See Full Written Order. (JS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 22 July, 2013 03:17:25 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRYL WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
12-CV-1014
S.A. GODINEZ, et. al.,
Defendants.
OPINION
Plaintiff' has filed a motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel and has previously
demonstrated reasonable attempts to find counsel on his own. The Court may therefore proceed
to the next step in the inquiry: “given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear
competent to litigate it himself?" Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007), citing
Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993). As the Seventh Circuit stated in Pruitt:
the difficulty of the case is considered against the plaintiff's litigation capabilities,
and those capabilities are examined in light of the challenges specific to the case
at hand. The question is not whether a lawyer would present the case more
effectively than the pro se plaintiff; “if that were the test, ‘district judges would be
required to request counsel for every indigent litigant.’”
Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655 (quoted and other cites omitted). A plaintiff's “literacy, communication
skills, educational level, and litigation experience” are relevant factors, though there are no
"fixed requirements." Id. at 655. “Intellectual capacity and psychological history, to the extent
that they are known, are also relevant. The plaintiff's performance up to that point in the
litigation may be some evidence of these factors, but, in the end, the estimation as to whether a
plaintiff can handle his own case must be ‘a practical one, made in light of whatever relevant
evidence is available on the question.’” Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 762 (7th Cir. 2010),
quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 656. The Court cannot require an attorney to accept pro bono
appointment on a civil case such as this. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 653 (in forma pauperis statute
“‘does not authorize the federal courts to make coercive appointments of counsel.’”)
Plaintiff does not state whether he graduated from high school, but test scores show his
reading level is approximately that of a ninth grader.[58, p. 9] The court also notes the Plaintiff
has previous litigation experience. See White v Fenton, Case No. 09-2245 and White v Benton,
Case No 10-155 in the Southern District of Illinois. The court also notes the Plaintiff has
actively litigated this case. The court initially dismissed his lawsuit finding the Plaintiff had
three “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). See April 11, 2012 Text Order. The Plaintiff
1
successfully filed a motion to reconsider demonstrating he had not earned three strikes and his
case was reopened. See May 21, 2012 Case Management Order.
In addition, the Plaintiff’s claims before this court are not complex. He alleges a Food
Supervisor retaliated against him when he complained about work conditions. He claims the
supervisor began treating him differently and made his working conditions more difficult. See
March 12, 2012 Merit Review Order. The Plaintiff also claims the Food Supervisor and three
other Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they failed to protect him from an
inmate attack on July 4, 2011. The Plaintiff says the Defendants knew there were problems
between the inmates, but the Defendants did not provide a safe environment and instead tried to
create a “dangerous atmosphere.” (Comp, p. 9)
The Plaintiff is capable of filing an affidavit explaining his working conditions. The
Plaintiff has had the chance to participate in discovery and can present copies of any grievances,
incident reports or medical records to support his claims. Accordingly, based on the information
available in the record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff appears competent to proceed pro se.
The Defendants have now filed a motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff has
filed a response. However, the Plaintiff also claims the law library was shut down during the
relevant time frame. Therefore, the court will allow the Plaintiff additional time if he wishes to
file any further response to the pending dispositive motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of counsel is denied at this stage of the
proceedings. [58].
2) The court will allow the Plaintiff additional time if he wishes to supplement his
response to the pending motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff must file any
additional response on or before August 12, 2013.
Entered this 22nd day of July, 2013.
s/Joe Billy McDade
JOE BILLY MCDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?