Hogan v. Meredith et al
Filing
20
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/10/13. The Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. 19 SEE WRITTEN OPINION.(AEM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 10 June, 2013 04:16:23 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL JOSEPH HOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
13-CV-1028
MARTY MEREDITH, et. al.,
Defendants.
OPINION
Plaintiff' has filed a motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel and has
demonstrated reasonable attempts to find counsel on his own. [19] 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.’”)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff states only that he is unable to find counsel to take his case. [19] Based on a
review Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is competent to litigate
his own case at this point. The Plaintiff alleges three Defendants at the Livingston County Jail
violated his constitutional rights to meaningful access to the courts when the Defendants refused
to provide access to legal materials and prevented the Plaintiff from filing a complaint. His
claim is not complex and the Plaintiff should be able to state what kind of complaint he intended
to file and what steps he took to file his lawsuit. Through simple discovery requests, Plaintiff
1
should be able obtain copies of any documents or grievances he filed at the jail complaining
about the lack of legal materials and his need to file a complaint as well as any responses he
received to those complaints. The Plaintiff may also ask the Defendants in discovery to state
what legal materials are available to jail inmates.
The Plaintiff is reminded he may utilize many of the discovery methods prescribed in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff should not file his discovery responses with the
court, but should instead send them directly to defense counsel. For instance, the Plaintiff may
submit his written interrogatories for the Defendants to defense counsel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33. The
Plaintiff may also submit requests for production of documents to defense counsel. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34. If the Defendants do not properly respond to the Plaintiff’s requests for relevant
information, he may then file a motion with the court to compel discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.
Accordingly, based on the limited information available in the record at this early stage,
the Court concludes that Plaintiff appears competent to proceed pro se. Further development of
the record may show otherwise.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
denied.[19]
Entered this 10th day of June, 2013.
s/Michael M. Mihm
MICHAEL M. MIHM
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?