Andrews v. Pfister et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Order:This Court is transmitting to plaintiff Andrews, together with a copy of this memorandum order, three copies of the form Motion for Attorney Representation. Andrews should promptly fill out and return two of those copies to the Cler k's Office with an appropriate representation as to whatever steps he has taken to try to get a lawyer to handle his case, and this Court will then act on the Motion so that Andrews' case can go forward. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/21/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EUGENE ANDREWS (K-56087),
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY PFISTER, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 7671

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se prisoner plaintiff Eugene Andrews ("Andrews") has again demonstrated (in more
than one way) that he is really not qualified to represent himself in this lawsuit that he began by
filing a "Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 Section 1983," employing the form
provided by the Clerk's Office for use by prisoners in custody. This Court's August 3, 2016
memorandum order (the "Order"), issued less than a week after Andrews' suit documents were
received in the Clerk's Office, explained in part that the consistently high balance in Andrews' trust
fund account at Stateville Correctional Center disqualified him for in forma pauperis status.
Although Andrews therefore had to pay the statutory $400 filing fee up front and did so, his actions
thereafter plainly displayed an inability on his part to handle the responsibility required for him to
go forward without the assistance of counsel.
For example, on September 9 the Clerk's Office inexplicably received from Andrews
another photocopy of his self-prepared Complaint (which had originally been filed on July 28),
and then on September 14 the Clerk's Office received a document hand-printed by Andrews that
this Court has frankly found unintelligible. All of this escalates the importance of Andrews being

provided with counsel designated from this District Court's trial bar to represent him, a step that
Andrews had attempted at the outset but that this Court's almost-immediately-issued Order found
it necessary to deny because Andrews then-filed Motion for Counsel (the "Motion," submitted on
another Clerk's-Office-supplied form) "has not shown what attempt, if any, Andrews has made to
retain counsel on his own, a requirement imposed by such Seventh Circuit decisions as that court's
en banc opinion in Pruitt v. Motz, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007)." That inadequacy should
have been obvious to Andrews, because he had left blank the space provided in Paragraph 2 of that
form calling for such information despite the form's statement: "[NOTE: This item must be
completed].
This Court is accordingly transmitting to Andrews, together with a copy of this
memorandum order, three fresh copies of the Motion form. Andrews should promptly fill out and
return two of those copies to the Clerk's Office with an appropriate representation as to whatever
steps he has taken to try to get a lawyer to handle his case (not a very demanding requirement, and
one that this Court recognizes is likely to be unsuccessful), and this Court will then act on the
Motion so that Andrews' case can go forward.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 21, 2016