Chatman v. Pfister et al

Filing 5

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 1/26/2012: For the reasons stated below, Petitioners motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is denied. Petitioner is given until February 21, 2012, to either pay the filing f ee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form for the Northern District of Illinois. Petitioner is warned that if he fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form for the Northern District of Illinois by February 21, 2012, this case will be dismissed. Petitioners motion for appointment of counsel 4 is denied. Mailed notice. [For further details see written opinion.](ea, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

12 C 99

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/26/2012

William Chatman ®-41178) vs. Randy Pfister

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is denied.
Petitioner is given until February 21, 2012, to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly
completed in forma pauperis application form for the Northern District of Illinois. Petitioner is warned that if
he fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form
for the Northern District of Illinois by February 21, 2012, this case will be dismissed. Petitioner’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 Petitioner’s William Chatman’s (Chatman) motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Chatman has not completed an in forma
pauperis application form for proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois and has instead filed a general
purpose in forma pauperis application form. In addition, Chatman has not completed the in forma pauperis
application form that he has provided. For example, Chatman fails to indicate whether he has received any
gifts in the last twelve months. Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
Chatman is given until February 21, 2012, to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly
completed in forma pauperis application form for the Northern District of Illinois. Chatman is warned that if
he fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form
for the Northern District of Illinois by February 21, 2012, this case will be dismissed.
Chatman 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
12C99 William Chatman (R-41178) vs. Randy Pfister

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, Chatman has not shown that this case is overly complex or difficult, factually or
legally. The court has considered the entire record in this case at this juncture, as it reflects on Chatman’s
ability to coherently present his case as a layperson and his ability to perform the tasks that normally attend
litigation. The court concludes that, based upon the record before the court, Chatman is competent to present
his case at this juncture without the assistance of appointed counsel. Therefore, an appointment of counsel is
not warranted at this juncture, and the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

12C99 William Chatman (R-41178) vs. Randy Pfister

Page 2 of 2