Crosby v. Servant et al

Filing 5

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 7/7/2011: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is denied. Plaintiff is given until 7/28/11 to either pay the filing fee or fi le an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by 7/28/11, This case will be dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 4 is denied. (For further details see written opinion). Mailed notice(smm)

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

11 C 4215

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

7/7/2011

Ronald Crosby (#2011-0101043) vs. Servant, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is denied. Plaintiff
is given until July 28, 2011 to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma
pauperis application form. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and
properly completed in forma pauperis application form by July 28, 2011, this case will be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [4] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Ronald Crosby’s (Crosby) motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Crosby has not completed his in forma pauperis
application form, failing, for example, to indicate whether he has any dependents. Crosby also indicates on
his in forma pauperis application form that he has not received more than $200 from any source in the last
twelve months. However, a review of Crosby’s prison trust account statement shows deposits totaling $240
in the last six months. Crosby has thus not provided sufficient information regarding his financial status and
the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Crosby is given until July 28, 2011 to either pay
the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. Crosby is
warned that if he fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis
application form by July 28, 2011, this case will be dismissed.
Crosby also seeks an appointment of counsel. An indigent civil litigant does not have a right to
appointed counsel. Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 264 (7th Cir. 1997). However, a court, in its discretion,
can appoint counsel for indigents in a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In determining
whether to appoint counsel for a civil litigant, a court must consider the following factors: “(1) has the
11C4215 Ronald Crosby (#2011-0101043) vs. Servant, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
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, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)(stating that there is no presumption in favor of
granting or denying a motion for appointment of counsel and that each motion is to be considered
individually). In considering the competency factor, the court must determine “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 or jury himself.” Id. at 655 (stating that “[t]he 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’”)(quoting Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir.
2006)). In assessing competency, the court must consider “whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate
his own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally attend litigation:
evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial.” Id. (emphasis
omitted). In ruling on a motion for appointment of counsel, the court should take into consideration “the
plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, educational level, and litigation experience” and evaluate
“evidence in the record bearing on the plaintiff’s intellectual capacity and psychological history,” including
“any information submitted in support of the request for counsel, as well as the pleadings, communications
from, and any contact with the plaintiff.” Id. (stating that “in some cases-perhaps many cases-the record may
be sparse” and that “[t]he inquiry into the plaintiff’s capacity to handle his own case is a practical one, made
in light of whatever relevant evidence is available on the question”).
In the instant action, Crosby has not shown that this case is overly complex or difficult, factually or
legally. We have considered the entire record in this case at this juncture, as it reflects on Crosby’s ability to
coherently present his case as a layperson and his ability to perform the tasks that normally attend litigation.
We conclude that, based upon the record before us, Crosby is competent to present his case at this juncture
without the assistance of appointed counsel. Therefore, we find that an appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this juncture, and we deny the motion for appointment of counsel.

11C4215 Ronald Crosby (#2011-0101043) vs. Servant, et al.

Page 2 of 2