Harvey v. Lopez et al

Filing 32

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 9/3/2013. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff' s motions for the appointment of counselare denied. [27, 28, 30] (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 03 September, 2013 01:35:21 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN PIERRE HARVEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
12-CV-4013
DR. LARRY PETERSON,
Defendant.
OPINION
Plaintiff has filed three additional motions for the appointment of pro bono counsel. [27,
28, 30] As previously explained, the court asks two questions in considering Plaintiff’s motion:
“(1) has the indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) 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); see also September 7, 2012 Text Order. The
Plaintiff still has not adequately demonstrated he has attempted to find counsel on his own. The
Plaintiff says he has contacted Northwestern University and two law clerks. [d/e 27] However,
the Plaintiff has not listed any other attorneys contacted, nor has he provided copies of any
letters sent or received from attorneys. The court does not find this to be a reasonable attempt to
find counsel. In addition, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is somehow prevented from
finding counsel on his own.
Even if the Plaintiff had passed this initial hurdle, he still appears competent to represent
himself at this stage of the proceedings. 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)
The Plaintiff argues he is not competent to represent himself and has included a copy of a
June 20, 2011 report from a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist concerning his fitness to stand
trial for a criminal charge. [28, p. 7]. The doctor states the Plaintiff’s long-term difficulties do
not preclude trial fitness and the Plaintiff does have an ability to understand the claims against
him and courtroom procedures. The Plaintiff also makes reference to vague disabilities, but has
not provided the court with any specific evidence of a medical or mental disability.
The Plaintiff was also given the opportunity to amend his complaint and he took
1

advantage of the opportunity to change his initial claims. [d/e 1; February 13, 2012 Order; [d/e
7]; August 15, 2012 Merit Review Order]. Therefore, the Defendants have filed a motion for
summary judgment and the initial argument alleges the Plaintiff did not exhaust his
administrative remedies as required. The Plaintiff must pass this initial hurdle to continue with
his litigation and he appears capable of stating what steps he took to file a grievance.
Based on the information available in the record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
appears competent to proceed pro se. Should the case proceed to the point that assistance of
counsel is appropriate, the court may revisit the issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel
are denied.[27, 28, 30]
Entered this 3rd day of September, 2013.

s/Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2