Perkins v. Cook County Municipality et al

Filing 16

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 9/13/2012: The plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [# 13 ] is denied. The plaintiff is once again reminded that he must provide the court with the original plus a judge's copy of every document filed. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice.(mr, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

RONALD A. GUZMÁN

CASE NUMBER

12 C 2494

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

September 13, 2012

Charles Perkins (#2011-1128056) vs. Cook County Municipality, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [#13] is denied. The plaintiff is once again reminded that he
must provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy of every document filed.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections, has
brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, jail
officials, violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by denying him due process in jail disciplinary proceedings
and by retaliating against him. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that his entire tier was placed on lockdown
as punishment for two inmates’ lawsuits, and that he and his fellow detainees were summarily disciplined for no
valid reason. 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
(CONTINUED)
mjm

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
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).
After considering the above factors, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this
case. 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 has had the wherewithal to bring five lawsuits already this year in this
district alone; furthermore, his submissions to date have been coherent and articulate. The plaintiff appears more
than capable of presenting his case, notwithstanding his failure to complete high school. 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.
The plaintiff is once again reminded that he must provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy of
every document filed.

Page 2 of 2