Simpson v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part plaintiff's motion dated January 30, 2013 (Doc. 12). The Court Grants her request for an extension of time and Denies her motion to appoint counsel. The Court further Denies 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Ida Simpson, Denies 5 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Ida Simpson, Denies 14 MOTION for Extension of Time MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Ida Simpson. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/4/13. Plaintiff shall file a supplement to her complaint.(bkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IDA SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-cv-673-JPG

BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Ida Simpson’s motion for extension of time
to file a supplement to her complaint (Doc. 14) and motions to appoint counsel (Docs. 2, 5 & 14).
For the following reasons the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for extension of time and denies her
motions to appoint counsel.
Whether to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant is within the sound
discretion of the district court. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007); Jackson v. County
of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992). There is absolutely no right to appointment of
counsel in a civil case. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 656-57. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court
may request the assistance of counsel in an appropriate civil case where a litigant is proceeding in
forma pauperis. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989); Pruitt, 503 F.3d at
649. Local Rule 83.1(i) obligates members of the bar of this Court to accept appointments, provided
an appointment is not made more than once during a 12-month period.
In deciding the request for counsel, the Court should ask (1) whether the indigent plaintiff
made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so and (2)
whether, given the difficulty of the case, the plaintiff appears at that time to be competent to litigate it
himself. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654-55 (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321-22 (7th Cir. 1993)).
“[T]he question is 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. In
making this inquiry, courts usually consider factors such as the plaintiff’s literacy, communication
skills, educational level, litigation experience, intellectual capacity and psychological history. Id.
In plaintiff’s first motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 2), she simply attached a document with a
list of law offices and one form letter from the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense and
Education Fund indicating they do not practice the type of law with which she needs assistance. The
Court cannot determine whether that letter even relates to the matters in this case. Her subsequent
motions to appoint counsel (Doc. 5 & 14) do not indicate she has made any additional efforts to
obtain counsel. These efforts do not constitute a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel. Further, the
Court cannot measure the difficulty of plaintiff’s case because the Court is unable to ascertain the
nature of the case from the current pleadings. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine whether
the difficulty of the case precludes plaintiff from litigating it pro se. Thus, the Court denies
plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel (Docs. 2 & 14).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
plaintiff’s motion dated January 30, 2013 (Doc. 12). Specifically, the Court GRANTS her request
for an extension of time and DENIES her motion to appoint counsel. The Court further DENIES
plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel (Doc. 2 & 5) dated May 31, 2012, and June 5, 2012. Finally,
plaintiff shall file a supplement to her complaint explaining the facts that gave rise to the violations
alleged in her complaint on or before May 1, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: February 4, 2013
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2