Hartman v. Kinderman et al

Filing 26

OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/15/2012. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, d/e 23 . Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline 30 days is granted, d/e 25 . The discovery deadline is extended for all parties to 7/31/2012. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to 8/31/2012. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 15 May, 2012 02:03:32 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
TRAVIS HARTMAN

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT E. KINDERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

11-CV-3133

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff' has filed a motion for the appointment of pro bono
counsel and has 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
1

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).
2

Plaintiff does not say what his education level is, but his pleadings
demonstrate an understanding of his claims and effectively communicate
the facts underlying those claims. Plaintiff also has another case pending
in this district in which his pleadings demonstrate the same competency.
Hartman v. Foster, 11-3132 (C.D. Ill.). Though the case involves
Plaintiff’s medical needs following surgery on his leg, the claim itself does
not appear to be overly complicated. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
repeatedly failed to follow simple post-operative instructions such as
changing Plaintiff’s bandages, cleaning the surgical site, and providing
Plaintiff with prescribed antibiotics. Through simple discovery requests
Plaintiff should be able obtain his medical records to corroborate his
medical problems and the post-surgical instructions. He should also 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). Copies of grievances and responses

3

thereto should also be easy to obtain in discovery. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff is competent to litigate his own case at this
point.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied (d/e
23);
2) Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline 30 days is
granted (d/e 25). The discovery deadline is extended for all parties to
July 31, 2012. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to August
31, 2012.
ENTERED:

May 15, 2012

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4