Little v. Village of Oak Park Police Department et al

Filing 5

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 4/10/2013: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is granted. The Court authorizes and orders Stateville Correctional Center officials to deduct $7.00 from Plaintiffs account, and to continue making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Big Muddy River Correctional Center. The Clerk shall also issue summons for servi ce of the complaint on Defendant Officer Guy and send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff's motion for the assistance of counsel 4 is denied without prejudice. (For further details see written opinion.) Mailed notice.(ym, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Thomas M. Durkin

CASE NUMBER

13 C 2341

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

4/10/2013

Michael D. Little (N-95232) vs. Village of Oak Park Police Department, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. The Court authorizes and orders Stateville
Correctional Center officials to deduct $7.00 from Plaintiff’s account, and to continue making monthly deductions in
accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Big Muddy River
Correctional Center. The Clerk shall also issue summons for service of the complaint on Defendant Officer Guy and
send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this
order. Plaintiff’s motion for the assistance of counsel [4] is denied without prejudice.

O[For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, Michael D. Little, a prisoner at the Big Muddy River Correctional Center, brings this pro se civil
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff having shown that he is indigent, his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $7.00. The trust fund officer at
Plaintiff’s place of incarceration is authorized and ordered to collect the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust fund
account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the trust fund officer at
Plaintiff’s place of confinement is directed to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account in an
amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from the
Plaintiff’s trust fund account shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10
until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S.
Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff’s name and
this case number. This payment obligation will follow Plaintiff in the event of this transfer to any other correctional
facility.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt review of the complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that on August 20, 2012, he was falsely arrested in Oak Park, Illinois. The two arresting
officers used excessive force while arresting Plaintiff and refused to provide him medical treatment for his injuries
after his arrest. Plaintiff names the Village of Oak Park Police Department, Officer Guy and a John Doe Officer
because he does not know the second officer’s name. Plaintiff may proceed on his claims against the known
Defendant at this time. The Village of Oak Park Police Department is not a suable entity, see Grey v. City of
Chicago, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2001), and service cannot be effected on the unknown Defendant.
The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendant Officer Guy. Any service forms necessary
for Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve Defendant with process. The U.S. Marshal
is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendant. With respect to any former Village of Oak Park Police
Department employee who can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the Village of Oak Park
shall furnish the Marshal with Defendant’s last-known address. The information shall be used only for purposes of

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
effectuating service [or for proof of service, should a dispute arise] and any documentation of the address shall be
retained only by the Marshal. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file, nor disclosed by the
Marshal. The Marshal is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendant in the manner prescribed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service.
Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the
Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must include the original and a judge’s copy of all filings. In addition, Plaintiff
must send an exact copy of any filing to Defendant or, if represented by counsel, to counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff
must include on the original filing a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were mailed and the date of
mailing. Plaintiff must also insure all pleadings, written motions, and other papers submitted to the Court are signed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or otherwise fails to comply with these
instructions may be disregarded by the Court or returned to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also seeks the assistance of counsel. Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to
counsel. See Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). 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 request counsel for Plaintiff, 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)). If so, the Court must consider:
(1) whether, given the degree of difficulty of the case, 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. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851-52 (7thCir. 2010); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.
2007); Gil, 381 F.3d at 656.
After considering the above factors, the Court concludes that granting Plaintiff the assistance of counsel is not
warranted in this case at this time. Plaintiff has articulated colorable claims and has adequately investigated the facts
giving rise to his complaint. Neither the legal issues raised in the complaint nor the evidence that might support
Plaintiff’s claims are so complex or intricate that a trained attorney is necessary.
As Plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting his case, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff the
assistance of counsel at this time. It should additionally be noted that the Court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in
the handling of their lawsuits. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney assistance is denied without prejudice.
Should the case proceed to a point that assistance of counsel is appropriate, the Court may revisit this request.

Page 2 of 2