Hickman v. Wexford Healthcare Sources et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying 86 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 87 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 7/16/2020. (dhg)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-NJR-RJD Document 88 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #563

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TONY HICKMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-CV-939-NJR-RJD

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
VIPAN SHAH, and PHIL MARTIN,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff Tony Hickman filed in this Court a Motion (Doc. 87)
which appears to again ask the Court to appoint counsel for Hickman and requests that
the Court reconsider its Order of August 6, 2019, granting summary judgment to
defendants (Doc. 82).
The Court previously declined to appoint counsel on March 20, 2018 (Doc. 34), and
on October 23, 2018 (Doc. 57), in both instances finding that Hickman was competent to
litigate the case. When presented with a request to appoint counsel, the Court must make
the following inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain
counsel or effectively been precluded from doing so, and (2) given the difficulty of the
case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Hickman has again indicated unsuccessful attempts to recruit
counsel. His written filing, however, is intelligible and he does not advance any

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:17-cv-00939-NJR-RJD Document 88 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #564

arguments supporting a finding of incompetence. Accordingly, the Court again declines
to appoint counsel in this matter.
Plaintiff further asks the Court for reconsideration of its Order of August 6, 2019
(Doc. 82). Motions for reconsideration are only appropriate where the court has
misunderstood a party, made a decision outside of the issues presented by the parties,
made an error of apprehension, where a significant change in the law has occurred, or
where significant new facts have been discovered. Broaddus v. Shields, 665 F.3d 846, 860
(7th Cir. 2011) (citing Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191
(7th Cir. 1990)). Here, Hickman states that he has subsequently been examined by medical
professionals who instructed him that “the prison should set me up with a plastic surgery
because im [sic] going to need him [sic].”
While the Court regrets Hickman’s problems with his wrist and his continuing
difficulties finding appropriate medical treatment, the additional facts provided by
Hickman do not support his claim in this action that defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. Accordingly, the Court must deny his request
for reconsideration.
In conclusion, the Court DENIES Hickman’s Motion for Reconsideration and to
Appoint Counsel (Docs. 86, 87).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 16, 2020
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 2 of 2