Dixon v. Schaefer et al

Filing 73

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Blanche M. Manning on 10/2/2012:The plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel 72 is denied. (For further details see order) Mailed notice(tlp, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

BLANCHE M. MANNING

CASE NUMBER

11 C 6860

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

10/2/2012

Lamonte Dixon, Jr. (#K-96013) vs. Ronald Schaefer, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [72] is denied.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
The plaintiff, an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, correctional officials and health care providers, violated the
plaintiff’s constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. This matter
is before the court for ruling on the plaintiff’s 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(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 above factors, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in
this case. Although the amended 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 this action. 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 is a highly experienced and savvy litigator; his
submissions to date have been coherent and articulate. The plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting his
case, notwithstanding the limitations imposed by his confinement in segregation. 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.

Page 2 of 2