Ashworth v. Mumbower et al

Filing 27

ORDER, GRANTING 2 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Timothy Ashworth, MOOTING 15 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Timothy Ashworth. Attorney Kyle P Seelbach for Timothy Ashworth added. Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/20/2015 at 2:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Court to initiate the conference call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 7/13/15. (sgp)

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

TIMOTHY ASHWORTH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVE MUMBOWER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 3:15-cv-182-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. (Doc.
2). The Motion is GRANTED.
Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). Under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, this Court has discretion to recruit counsel to represent indigents in
appropriate cases. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). In evaluating
whether counsel should be appointed, this Court must examine (what are known as) the Pruitt
factors and apply them to the specific circumstances of this case. Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d
749, 760 (7th Cir. 2010). The Court must ask: “‘(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable
attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the
difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?’” Id. at 761, quoting
Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654.
The circumstances presented in this case warrant recruitment of counsel. See Santiago,

Page 1 of 3

599 F.3d at 765 (“The situation here is qualitatively different from typical prison litigation.”).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 2) and APPOINTS Attorney
Kyle P. Seelbach of the firm Husch Blackwell to represent Plaintiff in this Court only.1 Attorney
Seelbach is encouraged to share his responsibilities with an associate who is also admitted to
practice in this district court. Attorney Seelbach shall enter his appearance on or before July 24,
2015.
Plaintiff is cautioned to consult with his counsel in this matter and to understand that it is
Attorney Seelbach who is the legal professional in this relationship. Without commenting on the
validity of the matter in litigation, counsel is reminded and plaintiff is advised that counsel, even
though appointed by the Court, has an obligation under the rules to refrain from filing frivolous
pleadings. As a consequence, counsel will likely, from time to time, advise Plaintiff against taking
a certain course of action. While Plaintiff may not totally agree with counsel’s advice, he should
realize that, in the long run, such advice will be in his best interest because it is in compliance with
the law. Also, counsel may advise Plaintiff to pursue additional claims or to abandon certain
existing claims.
Counsel, of course, maintains an ethical obligation to fully and vigorously represent his
client, but only to the extent that it does not impede his ethical obligation to follow the rules of the
Court and the law. If Plaintiff wants to be represented by counsel, he will have to cooperate fully
with counsel. The Court will not accept any filings from Plaintiff individually while he is
represented by counsel, except a pleading that asks that he be allowed to have counsel withdraw
from representation. If counsel is allowed to withdraw at the request of Plaintiff, it is unlikely the
1

The Local Rules of the Southern District of Illinois direct that every member of the bar of this
Court “shall be available for appointment by the Court to represent or assist in the representation of
those who cannot afford to hire an attorney.” SDIL-LR 83.1(i).
Page 2 of 3

Court will appoint other counsel to represent him.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, if there is a monetary recovery in this
case (either by verdict or settlement), any unpaid out-of-pocket costs must be paid from the
proceeds. See SDIL-LR 3.1(c)(1). If there is no recovery in the case (or the costs exceed any
recovery), the Court has the discretion reimburse expenses. The funds available for this purpose
are limited, and counsel should use the utmost care when incurring out-of-pocket costs. In no
event will funds be reimbursed if the expenditure is found to be without a proper basis. The Court
has no authority to pay attorney’s fees in this case. Counsel is encouraged to enter into a fee
contract with Plaintiff to address both the payment of attorney’s fees and costs should
Plaintiff prevail.
Finally, counsel is informed that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated by Illinois Department
of Corrections at the Big Muddy River Correctional Center. Information about the facility is
available at www.idoc.state.il.us.
Defendants in this matter have not yet entered an appearance. However, a telephonic
status conference is hereby SET for August 20, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. The Court will initiate the
conference call.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order and the standard letter
concerning appointment of counsel to Attorney Seelbach immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 13, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3