Gray v. Taylor et al

Filing 57

WRITTEN Opinion: The plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel 56 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2010. (For further detail see written opinion). Mailed notice.(jj, )

Gray v. Taylor et al
Order Form (01/2005)

Doc. 57

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

SIDNEY I. SCHENKIER 09 C 7720

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE
D O C K E T ENTRY TEXT:

DATE

12/30/2010

Doikah S. Gray (#K-70373) vs. Nichol Taylor, et al.

The plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel [#56] is denied.

O

[For further details see text below.]

D o c k e t in g to mail notices.

STATEMENT The plaintiff, a state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, officials at the Stateville Correctional Center, violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by harassing and retaliating against him for speaking out about a prison employee's misconduct, and by denying him due process in prison disciplinary proceedings. This matter is before the court for ruling on the plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel. The motion is denied. There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (2010); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, the district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request counsel for an indigent litigant. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007), citing Johnson, 433 F.3d at 1006. When a pro se litigant submits a request for appointment of counsel, the court must first consider whether the indigent plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own, or conversely, if he has been precluded from doing so. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. Next, the court must evaluate the complexity of the case and whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate it on his own. Id. at 654-55. Another consideration is whether the assistance of counsel would provide a substantial benefit to the court or the parties, potentially affecting the outcome of the case. Id. at 654; Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Local Rule 83.36© (N.D. Ill.) (listing the factors to be taken into account in determining whether to appoint counsel). (CONTINUED)
mjm

P a g e 1 of 2

Dockets.Justia.com

STATEMENT (continued) After considering the above factors, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. First, the plaintiff has failed to show either that he has made reasonable efforts to retain private counsel or that he has been effectively precluded from making such efforts. In any event, although the complaint sets forth cognizable claims, the plaintiff has alleged no physical or mental disability that might preclude him from adequately investigating the facts giving rise to his complaint. Neither the legal issues raised in the complaint nor the evidence that might support the plaintiff's claims are so complex or intricate that a trained attorney is necessary. The plaintiff, an experienced litigator in this court whose submissions to date have been coherent and articulate, appears more than capable of presenting his case. It should additionally be noted that the court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in the handling of their lawsuits. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied at this time. Should the case proceed to a point that assistance of counsel is appropriate, the court may revisit this request. As a final concern, if the plaintiff is unsatisfied with the defendants' responses to certain discovery requests, then he may wish to file an appropriate motion. In that event, the court may examine the defendants' objections and make a ruling as to whether those objections are appropriate.

P a g e 2 of 2