Henson v. Canon Business Solutions

Filing 30

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/17/2012: Accordingly, the Court denies Henson's motion for appointment of counsel. Henson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. Mailed notice(vcf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Virginia M. Kendall

CASE NUMBER

12 C 3785

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

12/17/2012

Henson vs. Canon

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Accordingly, the Court denies Henson’s motion for appointment of counsel. Henson’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is denied as moot.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Lisa Henson (“Henson”) has filed a complaint against her former employer Canon Business
Solutions, in which she alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
On May 16, 2012, Henson filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The Court denied this motion on June
26, 2012. In reaching its decision the Court applied the test created by the Seventh Circuit in Pruitt v. Mote,
see 503 F.3d 647, 656 (7th Cir. 2007), and found that Henson should not be appointed counsel because: (1)
she was not indigent; and (2) she appeared competent to litigate the case herself. (See Doc. 7.) The Court did
find that Henson had made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel before moving for the appointment.
At the November 14, 2012 initial status conference, Henson re-raised her request for counsel. The
Court directed Henson to file a supplemental motion for appointment of counsel that provides support for her
statements that she is unable to afford counsel. After reviewing Henson’s supplemental motion, the Court is
satisfied that Henson is unable to afford counsel. The affidavit attached to Henson’s motion shows that she is
currently living off of unemployment insurance and her savings. It also shows that she is coping with
significant medical bills. Paying for private counsel would likely prevent her from providing for life’s
necessities. See, e.g., Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980).
However, Henson still fails to show that her case is too complex for her to litigate herself. Civil
litigants in federal court do not have a statutory or constitutional right to be represented by counsel. See
Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 656. “When confronted with a request under § 1915(e)(1) for pro bono counsel, the
district court is to make the following inquiries: (1) has the 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 [her]self?” Id. at 654-55. While there are no fixed
requirements for determining a plaintiff’s competence to litigate her own case, the Court should consider “the
plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, educational level and litigation experience.” Id. at 655. Similarly,
12C 3785 Henson vs. Canon

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
“there are no hard and fast rules for evaluating the factual and legal difficulty of the plaintiff’s claims...[t]he
inquiry into plaintiff’s competence and case difficulty is particularized to the person and case before the
court.” Id. at 656.
Here, Henson seems fully capable of litigating her claims herself. This suit is a relatively
straightforward employment discrimination action. Henson is a college graduate. She has already adequately
articulated her claims, participated in a scheduling conference and prepared motions seeking specific relief.
She has shown that she is adept at navigating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint
process. Because Henson is competent to litigate her own case and her claims for discrimination and
retaliation are no more complicated than those in typical employment discrimination cases, the Court finds
there is no need to appoint counsel at this time. See Sherrill v. Potter, 329 Fed. Appx. 672, 675 (7th Cir.
2009) (affirming district court’s decision to deny motion for appointment of counsel because plaintiff’s
“claims for discrimination and retaliation were no more complicated than those in a typical employment
discrimination case”). Accordingly, the Court denies Henson’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Henson also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the Court previously granted
Henson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 21, 2012. Therefore, this motion is denied as moot.

12C 3785 Henson vs. Canon

Page 2 of 2