Hollins v. Godinez et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Cijae Hollins. Plaintiff to provide information re Unknown Party 4 by 4/23/2015. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/9/15. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
DU QUOIN IMPACT INCARCERATION)
)
PROGRAM SUPERINTENDENT,
)
)
Defendant.
CIJAE HOLLINS,

Case No. 3:14-cv-1306-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff
on February 3, 2015 (Doc. 13) and the issue of Unknown Party 4 as identified by the Court in the
December 22, 2015 Order. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Recruitment of
Counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the following schedule shall govern the
identification of Unknown Party 4.
Motion for Recruitment of 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. 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

Page 1 of 3

(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. 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’s first Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3) was denied without prejudice
to allow Plaintiff to use the proper form and identify which attorneys he contacted seeking
representation without Court assistance. Plaintiff’s current Motion indicates that contacted a
number of attorneys, who all declined to represent him, including Roger A. Lewis of Goldberg
Kohn, LTD, the Uptown People’s Law Center, and John Howard Association of Illinois. Plaintiff
states that he requires counsel because he only has some high school education, he lacks legal
training, and he requires the assistance from jailhouse lawyers/law clerks to file matters with the
Court. Coupled with these difficulties, Plaintiff is suing an individual whose name he did now
know at the time the Complaint was filed and the Defendant works at an institution (Du Quoin
Impact Incarceration Program) where he is not housed (Plaintiff currently is housed at the
Lawrence Correctional Center).
Notwithstanding these difficulties, Plaintiff’s case has been reduced to a single count of
excessive force that occurred on August 29, 2014 when Unknown Party 4, a correctional officer,
hit Plaintiff on the back of head causing injuries. Such a claim requires limited discovery and
would not require an expert.

From Plaintiff’s filings, he appears capable of reading and
Page 2 of 3

understanding English and following the Court’s directions. As such, counsel will not be
recruited at this time.
Unknown Party 4
On March 13, 2015, Jason Henton filed an Answer (Doc. 16). Although the Answer does
not specifically state, the Court assumes Mr. Henton is the Superintendent of the Du Quoin Impact
Incarceration Program. In order to aid in the naming of Unknown Party 4, the following is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant Henton, and file with the Court, identifying
information for the Unknown Party 4 (i.e. badge number, shift, time and date of alleged
incident/encounter, physical descriptions, etc.) by April 23, 3015.
2. Defendant Henton shall provide Plaintiff, and submit a notice to the Court, the names
Unknown Party 4 by May 7, 2015.
3.

Plaintiff shall file a motion to amend the complaint along with a proposed amended
complaint, naming the identified Unknown Party 4, by May 28, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 9, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3