Redman v. Payne et al
Filing
39
ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL. Attorney Lawrence S. Hall for Anthony Redman added. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 11/8/2012. (hbs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY REDMAN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK PAYNE, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 11-cv-347-DGW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
The Court raises this matter on its own motion for appointment of counsel. Civil litigants
do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir.
2007); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however,
this Court has discretion to recruit counsel to represent indigents in appropriate cases. Johnson v.
Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). In evaluating whether counsel should be appointed,
this Court must examine (what are known as) the Pruitt factors and apply them to the specific
circumstances of this case. Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760 (7th Cir. 2010). The Court must
ask: “‘(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?’” Id. at 761, quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654.
The circumstances presented in this case warrant recruitment of counsel. See Santiago, 599
F.3d at 765 (“The situation here is qualitatively different from typical prison litigation.”). First,
Plaintiff has shown that he tried to obtain counsel on his own. Moreover, Plaintiff has encountered
Page 1 of 3
difficulty seeking and obtaining discovery, and this case now is at the point where the difficulty of
the case exceeds Plaintiff’s ability to “coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.” See Pruitt,
503 F.3d at 655.
Accordingly, APPOINTS Attorney Lawrence Hall of the firm Sandberg, Phoenix, and
VonGontard to represent Plaintiff for all further proceedings in this Court.1 Attorney Hall shall
enter his appearance on or before November 30, 2012.
Plaintiff is cautioned to consult with his counsel in this matter and to understand that it is
Attorney Hall who is the legal professional in this relationship. Without commenting on the validity
of the matter in litigation, counsel is reminded and plaintiff is advised that counsel, even though
appointed by the Court, has an obligation under the rules to refrain from filing frivolous pleadings.
As a consequence, counsel will likely, from time to time, advise Plaintiff against taking a certain
course of action. While Plaintiff may not totally agree with counsel’s advice, he should realize that,
in the long run, such advice will be in his best interest because it is in compliance with the law. Also,
counsel may advise Plaintiff to pursue additional claims or to abandon certain existing claims.
Counsel, of course, maintains an ethical obligation to fully and vigorously represent his
client, but only to the extent that it does not impede his ethical obligation to follow the rules of the
Court and the law. If Plaintiff wants to be represented by counsel, he will have to cooperate fully
with counsel. The Court will not accept any filings from Plaintiff individually while he is
represented by counsel, except a pleading that asks that he be allowed to have counsel withdraw
from representation. If counsel is allowed to withdraw at the request of Plaintiff, it is unlikely the
1
The Local Rules of the Southern District of Illinois direct that every member of the bar
of this Court “shall be available for appointment by the Court to represent or assist in the
representation of those who cannot afford to hire an attorney.” SDIL-LR 83.1(i).
Page 2 of 3
Court will appoint other counsel to represent him.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, if there is a monetary recovery in this case
(either by verdict or settlement), any unpaid out-of-pocket costs must be paid from the proceeds.
See SDIL-LR 3.1(c)(1). If there is no recovery in the case (or the costs exceed any recovery), the
Court has the discretion reimburse expenses. The funds available for this purpose are limited, and
counsel should use the utmost care when incurring out-of-pocket costs. In no event will funds be
reimbursed if the expenditure is found to be without a proper basis. The Court has no authority to
pay attorney’s fees in this case. Counsel is encouraged to enter into a contingent fee contract
with Plaintiff to address both the payment of attorney’s fees and costs should Plaintiff prevail.
Finally, counsel is informed that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated by the Illinois Department
of Corrections at the Danville Correctional Center. Information about the facility is available at
www.idoc.state.il.us. Counsel may use the Illinois Department of Corrections’ videoconferencing
system to confer with Plaintiff. The Court asks the Assistant Attorney General assigned to this case
to facilitate those arrangements.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order and the standard letter
concerning appointment of counsel to Attorney Hall immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 8, 2012
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?