Brown v. Duvall et al

Filing 34

ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 3/1/2016: Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation 32 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 33 to respond to Defendants' motion for summary j udgment is granted. The briefing schedule on Defendants' motion for summary judgment is modified as follows: Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment is due April 18, 2016. Defendants' reply is due May 9, 2016. [For further detail see attached order.] Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID BROWN (#K77874),
Plaintiff,
v.
KIM DUVALL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 1672
Judge Manish S. Shah

ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney representation [32] is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time [33] to respond to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is granted. The briefing schedule on Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is modified as follows: Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment is due April 18, 2016. Defendants’ reply is due May 9, 2016.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff David Brown, a Stateville Correctional Center inmate, brought this
pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was exposed to
inhumane conditions of confinement during a six-month stint in segregation that
began in December 2014. Defendants are Kim Duvall, Salvador Godinez, and Tarry
Williams. At the most recent status hearing on December 16, 2015, Defendants
informed the Court that there were no outstanding discovery requests. [26]. In
response to the Court’s inquiry, Plaintiff informed the Court that he sought no
further information. [26]. The Court set a dispositive motion schedule, ordering
Defendants to file their motion by February 1, with Plaintiff to respond by April 4,
and Defendants to reply by April 25. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s renewed motion
for attorney representation and his motion for extension of time to respond to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney representation is denied. “There is no right to
court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708,
711 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court has discretion to request that an attorney represent
an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In making the
decision whether to recruit counsel, the Court must consider (1) whether the plaintiff
made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own behalf or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and, if so, (2) whether this particular plaintiff appears

competent to litigate the matter himself given the factual and legal complexity of the
case. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654–55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). This analysis
does not focus solely on the plaintiff’s ability to try the case, but on his ability to
gather evidence and prepare and respond to motions. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692,
696 (7th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff has indicated that he has contacted several law firms seeking
representation but has not been successful. Nevertheless, after considering the
relevant factors and examining Plaintiff’s filings to date, the Court concludes that
solicitation of counsel for Plaintiff is not currently warranted.
Plaintiff argues that, although his education includes some college, he is less
educated than practicing attorneys. This fact, however, is common to all pro se
litigants. Plaintiff is educated at a level beyond that of many prisoners, and
Plaintiff’s filings continue to be organized and thoughtful. Although Plaintiff, like
most pro se litigants, has a limited knowledge of the law and faces the general
obstacles presented by the fact of his incarceration, including limited law library
access, he has presented arguments with supporting law. Plaintiff, in fact,
successfully responded to the Court’s earlier order regarding whether he had
exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. [6]; [7]. Finally, this case is
not particularly complex and is of the type frequently litigated by pro se plaintiffs.
The Court also indulges reasonable requests for additional time for written
responses, due to limited law library access and resources for incarcerated Plaintiffs.
Although Plaintiff again asserts that he has been diagnosed with mental
illnesses, Plaintiff has not explained how these conditions or medications affect his
ability to coherently and competently pursue his case. See Olson, 750 F.3d at 712.
Given the continued quality of Plaintiff’s submissions, without more, the Court
cannot glean from Plaintiff’s mere diagnoses that Plaintiff is unable to competently
litigate this case. Plaintiff has pursued discovery, albeit with some instruction from
the Court regarding how to submit his requests for documents and the tools available
to pro se litigants. [25]. Most importantly, the Court spoke with Plaintiff on
December 16, 2015, and Plaintiff expressed his understanding that discovery was
closed and the case was proceeding to summary judgment. The Court concludes that
Plaintiff can manage this stage of the litigation, given the wide latitude he will be
granted in the handling of his lawsuit.
Plaintiff now says that Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests were
“elusive” and lacked documents Plaintiff needs to support his claims, including
incident reports, work orders, supply ordering forms, “employee’s responsibility
documents,” or complaints by other inmates. Plaintiff says he was unable to flesh out
his claims or move to compel defendants because of his lack of representation. But
2

this argument is difficult to credit because Plaintiff told the Court at the last status
hearing that he required nothing further from Defendants. The Court then explained
the next steps, including the prospect of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
to the Plaintiff. In any case, Plaintiff does not explain why his listed items are
necessary to respond to Defendants’ motion. This case raises the conditions of
Plaintiff’s confinement over a six-month period. Many of the key facts regarding
what Plaintiff allegedly endured, the actions he took to pursue a remedy prior to
filing this lawsuit, and Defendants’ responses (or lack thereof), generally are within
Plaintiff’s unique knowledge. In his deposition, which is attached to Defendants’
Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit B, Plaintiff testified regarding
the conditions he endured and his actions to obtain help. [29-2]. Defendants also
served upon Plaintiff a Rule 56.2 Notice to Pro Se Litigant Statement, which
provides information regarding the required components for a response to a
summary judgment motion, along with citations to the applicable rules, including
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and this Court’s Local Rule 56.1. [30]. The notice
also provides information regarding submitting documents and declarations in
support of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff is encouraged to carefully review the Rule 56.2
Notice and the rules cited within it, for additional guidance.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive
Defendants’ motion until nearly two weeks after it was filed and that his law library
time is limited. In light of the apparent delay in Plaintiff receiving Defendants’
motion and the limitations Plaintiff faces, the briefing schedule on Defendants’
motion is extended by two weeks, as set forth above.
ENTER:
Date: 3/1/16

____________________________
Manish S. Shah
U.S. District Judge

3