Love EL v. City of Chicago, a municipal corporation et al

Filing 19

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 10/2/2012: For the reasons stated below, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 16 . The notice of motion date of 10/4/2012 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Plaintiff may refile the motion if he attaches a fully completed financial affidavit. 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

12 C 2730

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

10/2/2012

Love EL vs. City of Chicago

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
[16]. The notice of motion date of 10/4/2012 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Plaintiff
may refile the motion if he attaches a fully completed financial affidavit.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [16] at this time. Civil litigants have no
constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal court. See Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir.
2002); Merritt v. Faulkner, 697 F. 2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, a district court may, in its discretion,
“request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir.
2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)); Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1997). In deciding whether
to appoint counsel, the Court must “first determine if the indigent has made reasonable efforts to retain counsel
and was unsuccessful or that the indigent was effectively precluded from making such efforts.” Gil, 381 F.3d at
656 (quoting Jackson v. Cnty. of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1072 (7th Cir. 1992)). If so, the Court must consider:
(1) whether, given the stage of the proceedings and the degree of difficulty of the case, the plaintiff appears
competent to proceed with the case himself or herself; and (2) whether the assistance of counsel would provide
a substantial benefit to the court or the parties, potentially affecting the outcome of the case. Gil, 381 F.3d at 656
(relying on Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993)). The Court should consider the capabilities of
Plaintiff to litigate his own case in deciding whether or not to appoint counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F. 3d 647,
654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). It should also be noted that the Court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in
the handling of their lawsuits.
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient information for the Court to make the threshold determination
that he is in fact indigent. Although his motion indicates that he has “attached an original Application for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the proceeding detailing my financial status,” no such filing has been made at
this time. Without knowing the amount of income or other benefits that he receives along with a statement of any
other assets as well as Plaintiff’s liabilities, the Court is unable to assess Plaintiff’s ability to afford counsel. If
and when Plaintiff provides the required financial information in a renewed motion, the Court will assess whether
he is in fact indigent and whether, after considering the pertinent factors, appointment of counsel would be
appropriate or whether Plaintiff would be capable of proceeding on his own at this stage of the case.
12C2730 Love EL vs. City of Chicago

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [16] is denied without prejudice.

12C2730 Love EL vs. City of Chicago

Page 2 of 2