Boyd v. Alcoke et al

Filing 150

MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S PRO SE STATUS signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 8/14/2013. (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN D. BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW R. ALCOKE AND
MARK WALLSCHLAEGER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 09 C 6856

MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE STATUS
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
During his opening statement at trial yesterday, pro se plaintiff Steven Boyd
asserted his belief that he was destined to lose this case because he was proceeding
pro se without a court-provided attorney. The Court previously denied Mr. Boyd’s
request to recruit counsel for him. Because Mr. Boyd raised the issue during trial, the
Court issues this memorandum to elaborate further on its reasoning for denying Mr.
Boyd’s counsel request and to explain its management of the case in light of Mr. Boyd’s
pro se status.
“There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases.
Nevertheless, the district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request
counsel for an indigent litigant.” Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010)
(citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654, 656 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc); Johnson v.
Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006)). When evaluating a request by a pro se
plaintiff for recruitment of counsel, a court must ask: “(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, 503 F.3d at 654.
The fact that a case would be more effectively presented through counsel is not
the standard; as the Seventh Circuit stated in Pruitt, “if that were the test, district judges
would be required to request counsel for every indigent litigant.” Id. at 655. Instead, the
relevant question is “whether the difficulty of the case -- factually and legally -- exceeds
the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge and
the jury himself.” Id. The Court “must consider both halves of this equation -- the
difficulty of the case and the competence of the litigant.” Bracey v. Grondin, 712 F.3d
1012, 1016 (7th Cir. 2012).
Although there are no fixed requirements for determining a plaintiff’s competence
to present his case, a Court may consider factors such as plaintiff’s “literacy,
communication skills, educational level, and litigation experience.” Id. at 655. There
are likewise no set requirements when considering the complexity of the case. A court
should take into account both the subject matter involved and the plaintiff’s ability to
attend to the tasks of litigation such as gathering evidence, preparing and responding to
motions, and trial practice. Id. at 655-56.
Turning first to Mr. Boyd’s abilities, the Court continues to find him to be an
intelligent and articulate person who is able to advocate his case in a straightforward
way. The Court previously noted that Mr. Boyd’s filings properly addressed the relevant
issues, applied appropriate law to fact, and made coherent arguments. Mr. Boyd won
some motions and lost others, but the Court has at all times been fully able to

2

understand the arguments he presented, and those arguments were of a high quality for
a pro se party.
The record does not disclose Mr. Boyd’s education. However, his writing and
reasoning abilities are of good quality. In addition, the Court had a great deal of contact
with Mr. Boyd during the pretrial phase of the case via numerous telephone status
hearings and has had the opportunity to observe Mr. Boyd in action at the pretrial
conference and during the course of the trial. The Court’s observations of Mr. Boyd
have reinforced its original belief that Mr. Boyd is an intelligent and articulate person
who is fully capable of presenting his claim and contentions in a clear and cogent
manner.
The Court has kept a vigilant watch on case, especially at trial, to ensure that Mr.
Boyd’s pro se status does not adversely impact the integrity of the proceedings. The
Court has worked with both parties in all aspects of preparation for and conduct of the
trial, including preparation of the jury questionnaire, the process of jury selection, and
the introduction of evidence. The Court has carefully explained each step of the trial
proceedings to Mr. Boyd to make sure that he understood what the process involves
and what is required of him, and the Court has provided sufficient time for Mr. Boyd to
prepare for each task. Among other things, the Court advised Mr. Boyd to create an
outline so that he could organize his trial testimony, and the Court also suggested, after
Mr. Boyd’s appearance at the pretrial conference, that he wear his best clothing to court
to put his best foot forward to the jury. Mr. Boyd adopted this suggestion and has
appeared at trial in a dress shirt, tie and slacks at trial. He has comported himself in a
professional way at all times when presenting his case to the jury.

3

In addition, recognizing that Mr. Boyd lacked familiarity with the rules of
evidence, the Court spent a significant amount of time reviewing defendants’ proposed
exhibits prior to trial and issued a three page memorandum raising admissibility
concerns. And during the trial, the Court has raised objections sua sponte to certain
questions and arguments by defense counsel that the Court believed fell outside the
bounds of admissible evidence or proper argument.
Turning next to the issue of the complexity of the case, the case boils down to a
straightforward “swearing contest” between the parties, all focused on a single event
that took place over a matter of a few moments. Specifically, Mr. Boyd contends that
after he was re-handcuffed following an incident where he attempted to escape from the
arresting agents, defendant Matthew Alcoke struck him on the head with a gun without
proper cause, while defendant Mark Wallschlaeger stood idly by and did nothing to stop
Mr. Alcoke. Mr. Boyd was able to articulate his claim and his contentions clearly and
simply during his opening statement to the jury and during his testimony.
The case is a simple and straightforward one in which all of the available
information is readily accessible to both sides; no crucial evidence is missing or claimed
to be missing; and there are no complicated disputes. It has been established during
the trial, to the satisfaction of both parties, that the event at issue (Mr. Boyd’s attempted
escape and his re-arrest just prior to the alleged assault) was not captured on
videotape. Relevant evidence relating to Mr. Boyd’s medical treatment has also been
fully available to both sides and has been presented to the jury via testimony and
exhibits. Mr. Boyd has not disputed the substance of any of these surrounding events;

4

what is disputed focuses on the events in the moments following his re-arrest, and Mr.
Boyd has been able to present his side of those events fully and fairly.
Defendants’ use of medical records in evidence does not suggest that the case is
complex. There are no disputed medical issues involved in the case. Rather,
defendants have offered these records simply to show that Mr. Boyd did not complain of
an injury to his head – a point that Mr. Boyd does not dispute. Rather, he has
contended that the medical personnel were asking about traumatic head injuries, which
is not what he considered the alleged assault to be. Mr. Boyd has also explained during
his testimony that he did not initially complain because his prior experiences with law
enforcement led him to believe that it was common to be assaulted during arrests and
that this was something he just had to live with.
For all of these reasons, the Court reaffirms its earlier determinations that Mr.
Boyd is competent under the circumstances to litigate the case himself, without counsel.

________________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge
Date: August 14, 2013

5