Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 1/10/2013: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion foe leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is denied. Plaintiff is given until January 29, 2013, to either pay the fil ing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. Plaintiff is warned that if she fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by January 29, 2013, this case will be dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 5 is denied. Mailed notice [For further details see opinion.](mgh, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

12 C 10145

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/10/2013

Catherine Brown vs. Commissioner of Social Security

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion foe leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4] is denied.
Plaintiff is given until January 29, 2013, to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly
completed in forma pauperis application form. Plaintiff is warned that if she fails to pay the filing fee or file
an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by January 29, 2013, this case will
be dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [5] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Catherine Brown’s (Brown) motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Brown has failed to properly complete the in forma
pauperis application form filed with the court. For example, Brown has failed to indicate her past
employment and wages or salary. Since Brown has failed to provide sufficient information regarding her
financial status, the motion is denied. Brown is given until January 29, 2013, to either pay the filing fee or
file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. Brown is warned that if she
fails to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by
January 29, 2013, this case will be dismissed.
Brown also seeks an appointment of counsel. An indigent civil litigant does not have a right to
appointed counsel. Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 264 (7th Cir. 1997). However, a court, in its discretion,
can appoint counsel for indigents in a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In determining
whether to appoint counsel for a civil litigant, a court must consider the following factors: “(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 himself?”
Page
12C10145 Catherine Brown vs. Commissioner of Social Security

1 of 2

STATEMENT
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)(stating that there is no presumption in favor of
granting or denying a motion for appointment of counsel and that each motion is to be considered
individually). In considering the competency factor, the court must determine “whether the difficulty of the
case-factually and legally-exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to
the judge or jury himself.” Id. at 655 (stating that “[t]he question is not whether a lawyer would present the
case more effectively than the pro se plaintiff; ‘if that were the test, district judges would be required to
request counsel for every indigent litigant’”)(quoting Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir.
2006)). In assessing competency, the court must consider “whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate
his own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally attend litigation:
evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial.” Id. (emphasis
omitted). In ruling on a motion for appointment of counsel, the court should take into consideration “the
plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, educational level, and litigation experience” and evaluate
“evidence in the record bearing on the plaintiff’s intellectual capacity and psychological history,” including
“any information submitted in support of the request for counsel, as well as the pleadings, communications
from, and any contact with the plaintiff.” Id. (stating that “in some cases-perhaps many cases-the record may
be sparse,” and that “[t]he inquiry into the plaintiff’s capacity to handle his own case is a practical one, made
in light of whatever relevant evidence is available on the question”).
In the instant action, Brown has not shown that this case is overly complex or difficult, factually or
legally. The court has considered the entire record in this case at this juncture, as it reflects on Brown’s
ability to coherently present her case as a layperson and her ability to perform the tasks that normally attend
litigation. The court concludes that, based upon the record before the court, Brown is competent to present
her case at this juncture without the assistance of appointed counsel. Therefore, an appointment of counsel is
not warranted at this juncture, and the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Page
12C10145 Catherine Brown vs. Commissioner of Social Security

2 of 2