Williams v. Big Muddy Correctional Center et al

Filing 115

ORDER. The Order to Show Cause (Doc. 109 ) is DISCHARGED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file responses to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 94 , 97 ) on or before July 20, 2020. Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 114 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/18/2020. (ksp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FELTON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BIG MUDDY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-00770-SMY

Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 109) and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 114).
The Court issued the Order to Show Cause due to Plaintiff’s noted inactivity. Plaintiff
failed to file responses or to request additional time to respond to motions for summary judgment
filed by Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff was mailed a Notice and Consent to Proceed before
a Magistrate Judge but failed to file a consent or affirmative declination to consent as required by
Administrative Order 257, and mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable.
In response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff filed a notice stating he was having
issues with his “mailing service.” (Doc. 112). However, he did not address his failure to file a
response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment or his failure to comply with
Administrative Order 257. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will discharge the Order to
Show Cause and grant Plaintiff leave to file responses to the motions for summary judgment
within 30 days. Because the motions were filed more than six months ago, there will be no
further extensions of the deadline to file a response. Plaintiff is advised that the deadline to
file a response will not be extended any further and his failure to respond to the motions
will be considered an admission of the facts set forth in the motion and the merits of the

motion. See SDIL Local Rule 7.1(c) (“failure to timely file a response to a motion may, in the
Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion”); Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(e)(facts may be considered undisputed if a party fails to respond as required by Rule 56(c));
Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003)(failure to respond by the nonmovant as
mandated by the local rules results in an admission).
Plaintiff has also filed a fourth Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. (Doc. 114). He
seeks the Court’s assistance in recruiting counsel because he has been unable to obtain counsel
on his own and he has a limited education. Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or
statutory right to counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), the Court has discretion to recruit counsel to represent indigent litigants in
appropriate cases. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). When determining
whether to grant a plaintiff’s request for recruitment of counsel, the court must consider two
questions: “(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 654.
The Court previously found that Plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel
on his own. His prior requests for counsel were denied because he has demonstrated that he is
competent to litigate this matter on his own. (Docs. 21, 41, 62). Plaintiff does not cite any new
reason or change in his circumstances warranting the recruitment of counsel at this time.
Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 109) is DISCHARGED; Plaintiff is
granted leave to file responses to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 94, 97) on
or before JULY 20, 2020.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 114) is

DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 18, 2020
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

3