Dobbey v. Zhang et al

Filing 65

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 1/23/2012: Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel 62 is respectfully denied, without prejudice. Mailed notice(tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

ROBERT M. DOW, JR.

CASE NUMBER

11 C 2374

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/23/12

Lester Dobbey (#R-16237) vs. Liping Zhang, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [62] is respectfully denied, without prejudice.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
claims that Defendants, correctional officials and health care providers at the Stateville Correctional Center, have
violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. More
specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he has received inadequate care and treatment for chronic back problems. This
matter is before the Court for ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
The motion is respectfully 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(c)
(N.D. Ill.) (listing the factors to be taken into account in determining whether to appoint counsel).
(CONTINUED)
mjm

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
After considering the pertinent factors, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted
at this time. Although the complaint sets forth cognizable claims, 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 Plaintiff’s claims are so complex or intricate
that a trained attorney is necessary. Plaintiff is an experienced litigator, whose submissions to date in this and other
cases (10-cv-3965, 11-cv-146, 11-cv-2374, 11-cv-3000) have been coherent and articulate; he appears more than
capable of presenting his argument at this state of the case. Although Plaintiff’s pro se, incarcerated status may
prevent him from taking Defendants’ oral depositions, he is free to serve depositions upon written questions in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. It should additionally be noted that the Court grants pro se litigants wide
latitude in the handling of their lawsuits. Therefore, 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.

Page 2 of 2