Young v. Camp et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Execute Service; denying 35 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 25 Motion to Execute Service; finding as moot 26 Motion to Execute Service; denying 31 Motion to Execute Service. Defendants are DIRECTED to file a notice with the Court identifying Correctional Officer Hastings by October 15, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 9/24/2013. (jdp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CHRISTOPHER E. YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
JON M. CAMP ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-553-GPM-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are three Motions to Execute Service of Complaint Upon
Correctional Officer Hastings (Docs. 25, 31, 34) filed by Plaintiff, Christopher Young, the Motion
to Execute Service of Complaint Upon Defendant Jon Camp (Doc. 26) filed by Plaintiff on July
29, 2013, and a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 35) filed by Plaintiff on September 6, 2013.
The Motions to Execute Service Upon Correctional Officer Hastings are DENIED; the Motion to
Execute Service Upon Correctional Officer Jon Camp is DENIED as MOOT; the Motion to
Appoint Counsel is DENIED.
Service upon Defendant Hastings
After this Court issued its threshold order finding that Plaintiff=s complaint stated claims
for failure to protect and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the Clerk prepared
requests for waivers of service for Defendants Camp, Bradley, Lind, Furlow, James, Clark,
Hastings, and Shah (Docs. 12-19). Waivers of service were returned unexecuted as to Defendants
Hastings and Camp on July 25, 2013 as Camp had retired from Pinckneyville Correctional Center
and there was more than one correctional officer named Hastings that worked at the facility. In

Plaintiff’s Motions to Execute Service, he states that Correctional Officer Hastings worked on
February 4, 2012 “in 5-House segregation building.”

He further states that on said date

Correctional Officer Hastings worked the “c-wing on the 3:00 to 11:00 pm shift” along with
Sergeant Camp. Sergeant Camp has returned a waiver of service. Defendants are DIRECTED
to use this information to identify Correctional Officer Hastings as it should be sufficient.
Defendants SHALL file notice with the Court by October 15, 2013, identifying Correctional
Officer Hastings.
Service upon Defendant Jon Camp
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Execute Service of Complaint Upon Defendant Jon Camp (Doc.
26) on July 29, 2013. On July 29, 2013, a Second Request for Waiver of Service was sent to
Defendant Camp. On August 14, 2013, Waiver of Service was returned executed as to Defendant
Camp. As such, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as MOOT.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
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. Cnty. 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, 321-22 (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 655-56. Ultimately, the Court must “take
account of all [relevant] evidence in the record” and determine whether Plaintiff has the capacity to
litigate this matter without the assistance of counsel. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th
Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff has met his initial burden of attempting to secure private counsel.

Plaintiff has

attached a letter he sent to six attorneys to his Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. The letters
garnered responses from four attorneys declining to represent him. Thus, Plaintiff has made
reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, attempts to secure counsel.
The Court nonetheless finds that Plaintiff is competent to advance this uncomplicated
matter. The Complaint in this matter appears to be written and attested to by the Plaintiff himself.
He is capable of reading, writing and understanding the English language. Plaintiff=s complaint is
clearly stated and contains only two colorable legal claims—namely that the defendants failed to
protect him from assault, even after he informed them of the risk, and that Dr. Shah was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

While Plaintiff=s claims are colorable, they

are not complex and he will be capable of investigating crucial facts. Plaintiff appears to be
competent to prosecute this relatively simple matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 24, 2013

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge