Harper v. Santos et al

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING 26 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Nathaniel Harper, DENYING AS MOOT 23 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Nathaniel Harper, DENYING 22 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Nathaniel Harper. Discovery deadline RESET to 12/1/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 1/3/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/2/13. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NATHANIEL HARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
VENERIO M. SANTOS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-1188-GPM-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff,
Nathaniel Harper, on July 15, 2013 (Doc. 22), the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
filed by Plaintiff on July 15, 2013 (Doc. 23), and the Motion for Extension of Time filed by
Plaintiff on August 1, 2013. The Motion for Recruitment of Counsel is DENIED, the Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Motion for Extension of
Time is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has no constitutional nor statutory right to a Court-appointed attorney in this
matter. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
provides that the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”
Prior to making such a request, the Court must first determine whether Plaintiff has made
reasonable efforts to secure counsel without Court intervention (or whether has he been effectively
prevented from doing so). Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992).
If he has, then the Court next considers whether, “given the difficulty of the case, [does] the
plaintiff appear to be competent to try it himself . . . .” Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321-322
(7th Cir. 1993); Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655 (“the 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.”). In order to make such a determination, the Court may
consider, among other things, the complexity of the issues presented and the Plaintiff’s education,
skill, and experience as revealed by the record. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655-656.
Recruitment of counsel is not warranted in this case. Plaintiff represents that he has some
high school education. Plaintiff’s filings reveal that he is capable of reading and writing English,
that he is able to seek relief, and that he can clearly articulate his claims. Plaintiff claims that his
complaints of pain to his abdominal area were ignored by Defendants, that his complaints after
hernia surgery were ignored, and that Defendants failed to adequately provide post-surgery care,
all while he was housed at Centralia Correctional Center. Plaintiff has made no showing that he is
having difficulty conducting discovery, that extensive discovery is required, or that he lacks the
capacity to prosecute this claim without counsel. Therefore, his request for recruitment of
counsel is DENIED.
The Court notes that Plaintiff is already proceeding in forma pauperis and that this second
request is MOOT.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks an additional 60 days to conduct discovery. The current discovery
deadline is October 1, 2013. The motion is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is RESET to
December 1, 2013 and the Dispositive Motion filing deadline is RESET to January 3, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 2, 2013

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge