Grafton v. United States of America et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 11/26/2012: For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Craig Graftons application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is granted and his motion for appointment of counsel 5 is denied without prejudice at this time. Mailed notice.(ea, )

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 9169

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

11/26/12

Grafton vs. United States, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Craig Grafton’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4]
is granted and his motion for appointment of counsel [5] is denied without prejudice at this time.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices. Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
The Court has before it Plaintiff Craig Grafton’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and financial
affidavit [4] and motion for appointment of counsel [5]. Based on Plaintiff’s representations about his financial
status, the Court grants him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
However, the Court denies his motion for appointment of counsel 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. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1072 (7th Cir. 1992)). Plaintiff has
indicated that he contacted multiple law firms, who presumably declined to represent Plaintiff. The Court also
considers (1) whether, given the degree of difficulty of the case, the plaintiff appears competent to try it himself;
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). Plaintiff has
thus far presented intelligible pleadings. It also should be noted that the Court grants pro se litigants wide
latitude in the handling of their lawsuits.
In considering these criteria, the Court cannot determine at this early stage of the case whether Plaintiff would
be capable of trying this case himself or whether assistance of counsel would provide a substantial benefit to the
Court or the parties. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. The
Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
Court may reconsider the appointment of counsel issue at a later stage of the case if it appears that the standards
set forth above are satisfied. In the meantime, the Court advises Plaintiff that the Pro Se Help Desk in the Clerk’s
Office may be a useful resource.

Page 2 of 2