Jackson v. Wexford Health Sources et al

Filing 102

ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/20/2016 at 2:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson.), Attorney Darci F. Madden for Michael Jackson added. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 3/18/16. (sgp)

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

MICHAEL JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 3:15-cv-920-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. (Doc.
3). Having considered the request as required by Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010)
and United States v. Norwood, 602 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2010), 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.

Page 1 of 4

The circumstances presented in this case warrant recruitment of counsel. See Santiago,
599 F.3d at 765 (“The situation here is qualitatively different from typical prison litigation.”).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and
Local Rule(s) 83.1(i) and 83.9(b), the Court ASSIGNS Attorney Darci F. Madden of the firm
Bryan Cave – St. Louis, to represent Plaintiff in this Court only. Counsel shall enter his
appearance on or before April 1, 2016. Counsel is free to share responsibilities with an associate
who is also admitted to practice in this district court. Assigned counsel, however, must enter the
case and shall make first contact with Plaintiff, explaining that an associate may also be working
on the case. Plaintiff should wait for his attorney to contact him in order to allow counsel an
opportunity to review the court file. Counsel is ADVISED to consult Local Rules 83.8-83.14
regarding pro bono case procedures.
Plaintiff is cautioned to consult with his counsel in this matter and to understand that it is
assigned counsel 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

Page 2 of 4

Court and the law. If Plaintiff wants to be represented by counsel, he will have to cooperate fully
with counsel.

Now that counsel has been assigned, Plaintiff shall not personally file

anything in this case, 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,
there is no guarantee the Court will appoint other counsel to represent Plaintiff.
Plaintiff and his counsel are ADVISED that, 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 to reimburse
expenses.
Section 2.6 of this Court’s Plan for the Administration of the District Court Fund provides
for a degree of reimbursement of pro bono counsel’s out-of-pocket expenses, as funds are
available. The Plan can be found on the Court’s website, as well as the form motion for
out-of-pocket expenses and an Authorization/Certification for Reimbursement. Any motion for
reimbursement must be made within 30 days from the entry of judgment, or reimbursement will be
waived. See SDIL-LR 83.13. The funds available for this purpose are limited, however, 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. No portion of a partial filing fee assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 will be reimbursed. Assigned counsel may move for an exemption from PACER fees for
this case.
The district court has entered into an agreement with attorney James P. Chapman and the

Page 3 of 4

Illinois Institute for Community Law to consult with lawyers on issues in these cases, including
substantive and procedural questions (both legal and practical) and dealing with the client. Mr.
Chapman can be reached by phone at [phone] or email at [e-mail].
His services are available to you free of charge, as long as you are representing a prisoner pro bono
on a case in the district. You are also encouraged to view online lectures presented by Mr.
Chapman at www.illinoislegaladvocate.org (under “Legal Resources” then “Prisoners’ Rights”).
In addition, the Court’s website, www.ilsd.uscourts.gov, includes a Prison Litigation handbook
which is available to you as a resource. It is listed under “Forms” as “Attorney Information Prisoner Litigation Handbook.” The Court encourages you to consult it and Mr. Chapman as
needed.
Counsel is informed that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated by the Illinois Department of
Corrections at the Menard Correctional Center Plaintiff’s current contact information is: Michael
Jackson, M15131, Menard Correctional Center, 711 Kaskaskia Street, PO Box 1000, Menard, IL
62259. Information about the facility is available at www.idoc.state.il.us. Counsel may use the
Illinois Department of Corrections' videoconferencing system to confer with Plaintiff. The Court
asks the Assistant Attorney General assigned to this case to facilitate those arrangements.
This matter is SET for a telephonic status conference on April 20, 2016 at 2:30 p.m.
Defendant to initiate the conference call. The Court’s conference number is 618-482-9004.
Parties should be prepared to discuss the schedule in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 18, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4 of 4