Hoffmann v. Lakin et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING 71 Motion to Intervene; DENYING 72 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 9/8/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN LAKIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-648-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for the Judge to Intervene and the Motion for
Recruitment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff on June 6, 2016 (Docs. 71 and 72). The Motions are
DENIED.
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,
Page 1 of 3

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 request for counsel was denied because it appears that Plaintiff is capable of
litigating this matter without the assistance of counsel. This new motion was filed by Plaintiff
both in this matter and in another matter pending in this district, 3:15-cv-289-JPG-SCW. In that
other matter, Magistrate Judge Williams recently denied the same motion, noting the similarities
between the motion in that case and the one pending in this case. As indicated by Judge Williams,
Plaintiff has attached a list of attorneys he supposedly contacted seeking representation but it is
entirely unclear for what case Plaintiff sought such representation. While the Court is mindful
that Plaintiff may be attempting to save time and energy in drafting individual motions, Plaintiff’s
cases in this Court are separate and unique. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a
sufficient attempt, in this matter, to acquire counsel without the Court’s assistance. Plaintiff also
continues to appear competent to try this matter without the assistance of counsel.
To that end, Plaintiff’s other motion is also DENIED. In that motion, Plaintiff indicates
that he cannot acquire certain documents without entry of a protective order. Plaintiff seeks,
among other things, employment records, medical records, tax returns, and personal information
of Defendants. Such information is irrelevant to these proceedings regardless of whether a
protective order is entered. Plaintiff also seeks various policies and practices of the Madison
County Jail that may be relevant. No protective order is required, at this time, regarding such
policies and practices.

Therefore, if Plaintiff requires documents and information that are

relevant to these proceedings, he should utilize discovery tools, like interrogatories and requests to

Page 2 of 3

produce, to acquire those relevant documents and information.
DATED: September 8, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3