Donelson v. Shearing et al

Filing 194

ORDER DENYING Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by Charles Donelson (Doc. 191 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/6/2016. (mah).

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

CHARLES DONELSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. SHEARING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-95-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Charles Donelson’s Appeal of Magistrate Judge
Decision to District Court Judge (Doc. 190). Plaintiff appeals Magistrate Judge Daly’s rulings
allowing appointed counsel to withdraw and declining to appoint Plaintiff new counsel. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s appeal is DENIED and the ruling of Magistrate Judge Daly is
AFFIRMED.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, a district judge
should not disturb the ruling unless it is contrary to law or clearly erroneous. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); SDIL-LR 73.1(a). There is no constitutional or statutory
right to court-appointed counsel in a federal civil case. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649
(7th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits a court, in its discretion, to ask
lawyers to represent indigent litigants on a volunteer basis. Once counsel is assigned, Local Rule
83.11 provides that “counsel may apply to be relieved of an order of assignment on the following
grounds or on such grounds as the assigning judge finds adequate for good cause shown […]”
S.D.L.R. 83.11.
Plaintiff asserts that Judge Daly should not have allowed assigned counsel to withdraw

and should, at the very least, assign new counsel to represent him. Judge Daly determined, based
on the allegations in Plaintiff’s pro se motion for new counsel recruitment (Doc. 172) and
Counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 176), that the attorney-client relationship was beyond
repair. Judge Daly further determined that, at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiff is adequately
capable of handling his case through the resolution of dispositive motions and that Plaintiff may
request counsel if his claims proceed to trial. As Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right
to court-appointed counsel, Judge Daly’s rulings were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law. Accordingly, the appeal is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 6, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

2