White v. Chicago Park District

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/26/2012: For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4-1] and for appointment of counsel [5-1] are denied. Plaintiff shall pay the $350 filing fee within 14 days of the date of entry of this order or her complaint may be dismissed. Mailed notice(vcf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Ronald A. Guzman

CASE NUMBER

12 C 9275

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

11/26/2012

White v. Chicago Park District

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4-1] and for
appointment of counsel [5-1] are denied. Plaintiff shall pay the $350 filing fee within 14 days of the date of
entry of this order or her complaint may be dismissed.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint against the Chicago Park District. She seeks
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must look beyond plaintiff’s
financial status and review the complaint's allegations to determine whether the action she alleges is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if he is seeking damages from a
defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(i)-(iii); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007)
(grounds for sua sponte dismissal of in forma pauperis cases set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Plaintiff
alleges that she was discriminated against because of her sex and “in retaliation” in violation of her rights
under Title VII. (Dkt. # 1 at 4.) In order to state a claim, “[a] complaint must provide a ‘short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ which is sufficient to provide the
defendant with ‘fair notice’ of the claim and its basis.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011)
(citation omitted). While sparse, plaintiff’s complaint meets this low hurdle in this case. Nor does it appear
that the action is frivolous or malicious or that she is seeking damages from an immune party, the Chicago
Park District. Thus, the complaint passes muster under § 1915(e)(2). However, plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis is denied. While plaintiff indicates that she is unemployed, she is receiving approximately
$800/month in unemployment benefits and her husband has an income of $4500/month. Given this level of
income, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiff is unable to pay the $350 filing fee. Plaintiff is directed to
pay the fee within 14 days of the date of entry of this order or her complaint may be dismissed.
Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. While “[t]here is no constitutional or statutory right to
counsel in federal civil cases,” the Court has “discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request counsel for
an indigent litigant.” Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d
647, 654 (7th Cir.2007) (en banc); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir.2006); Farmer v. Haas,
990 F.2d 319, 323 (7th Cir.1993)). In determining whether to request counsel to represent plaintiff, this
Court considers whether: (1) plaintiff “has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own;” and, if
12C9275 W hite v. Chicago Park District

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
so, (2) “the complexity of the case and whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate it on h[er] own.”
Romanelli, 615 F.3d at 851–52 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654–55).
After considering the above factors, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted
in this case at this time. Plaintiff has articulated colorable claims and indicates she is college-educated. In
addition, neither the claims, including gender discrimination and retaliation, nor the evidence that might
support her claims are so complex or intricate that a trained attorney is necessary. Thus, the Court declines to
appoint counsel for plaintiff at this time; however, it is willing to revisit the issue at a later time, if necessary.

12C9275 W hite v. Chicago Park District

Page 2 of 2