Ibikounle v. Genesis Hospital et al

Filing 4

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on April 11, 2013. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel are DENIED without prejudice, and her Complaint is DISMISSED wit hout prejudice. Plaintiff has until May 2, 2013, to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is further granted permission to file another motion to appoint counsel after she demonstrates that she has made reasonable attempts to find counsel herself.(MTS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 11 April, 2013 05:27:37 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GENESIS HOSPITAL; UNITED STATES
)
OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT; )
ROCK ISLAND COUNTY; STATE OF
ILLINOIS; UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT; DR. ANIS AHMAD; TRINITY
HOSPICE; TRINITY MEDICAL
TERRACE PARK; DR. TOYOSIS
OLUTADE
AMINATA IBIKOUNLE,

Case No. 4:13-cv-4030-SLD-JAG

Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Aminata Ibikounle filed a pro se complaint against ten defendants. She alleges
that she is terminally ill and that she wishes to have the right to die at home. Presently before the
Court is her Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and her Motion to
Request Counsel, ECF No. 3. For the reasons described below, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED
without prejudice. Further, her complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
On April 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants
alleging unusual and cruel punishment and that she wishes to have the right to die with dignity
and compassion. At this time, however, the Court is unable to determine the nature of Plaintiff’s
claims against each Defendant.
The Court may screen complaints prior to service on the defendants and dismiss
complaints that fail to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d
1

778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999). In terms of the financial requirements for in forma pauperis treatment,
Plaintiff satisfies the requirement. But Plaintiff’s case cannot proceed because she fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For example, the
Court cannot determine what plausible cause of action Plaintiff has against this Court or the
Supreme Court. Because Plaintiff sued the Country, the State and the County, it is further
unclear whether Plaintiff is challenging a Federal law, an Illinois State law or a Rock Island
ordinance. Or Plaintiff may not be challenging a law since she also included private parties and
corporations. The Court is unable to determine a plausible cause of action against the named
doctors, the hospital, the hospice or the medical terrace park at least because the relationship of
those people and entities to the Plaintiff is not explained.1 The Court, however, grants Plaintiff
permission to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should plausibly allege
a claim upon which relief can be granted for each defendant she chooses to include in her
amended complaint.

Plaintiff is further granted permission to then file another motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. At that time the Court will review the amended complaint and motion
and determine whether or not Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has until May 2,
2013, to file an amended complaint or this case may be dismissed.
Additionally, although Plaintiff has no absolute right to counsel in her civil proceeding,
she asks the Court to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for her. See Merritt v. Faulkner,
697 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1983). After considering the factors set forth in Merritt, Plaintiff’s
Motion, and the deficiencies in the Complaint noted above, the Court concludes that appointment 
of counsel is not warranted in this action at this time. In addition to not adequately alleging any

1

Plaintiff’s Complaint does attach some paperwork suggesting that Dr. Anis Ahmad prescribed
Plaintiff some treatment and that Plaintiff was seen by the Trinity Bettendorf Emergency
Department. But what actions the Doctor or Trinity did or did not take against Plaintiff is
unknown.
2

claim for relief, Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that she has made any reasonable attempt to
retain private counsel. See Bracey v. Grondin, No. 12-1644, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5273, at *5
(7th Cir. March 15, 2013) (“District courts may ask an attorney to represent a litigant unable to
pay for his own lawyer. § 1915(e)(1). To qualify, the indigent litigant must make reasonable
efforts at finding counsel himself.”). Accordingly, the Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED
without prejudice.
Plaintiff is granted permission to file another motion to appoint counsel after she
demonstrates that she has made reasonable attempts to find counsel herself. If she does so, the
Court will consider a nonexclusive list of factors to determine whether appointment of counsel is
warranted, including: (1) the merit of the plaintiff's claim; (2) plaintiff’s ability to investigate
crucial facts; (3) whether the nature of the evidence indicates that the truth will more likely be
exposed where both sides are represented by counsel; (4) the capability of the plaintiff to present
the case; and (5) the complexity of the legal issues. Swofford v. Mandrell, 969 F.2d 547, 551
(7th Cir. 1992).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, and to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 3, are DENIED without prejudice, and
her Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff has until May 2, 2013, to file an
amended complaint. Plaintiff is further granted permission to file another motion to appoint
counsel after she demonstrates that she has made reasonable attempts to find counsel herself.
Entered this 11th day of April, 2013.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3