Santiago v. Bradley et al

Filing 139

ORDER OVERRULING 112 Objection filed by Fabian Santiago. Judge Beatty's 110 Order is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/12/2019. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FABIAN SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-989-NJR-MAB

v.
TYLER L. BRADLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Fabian Santiago filed an “Objection to the Denyal [sic]
for the Appointment of Counsel/Attorney” (Doc. 112). Although not docketed as such,
the pleading appears to be an appeal of Magistrate Judge Beatty’s Order of May 24, 2019
(Doc. 110), which denied Santiago’s request for counsel.
Under Local Rule 72(a), the District Court must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the Magistrate Judge’s order that is clearly erroneous or
is contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); see also SDIL-LR 73.1(a).
A decision is clearly erroneous “only if the district court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d
926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
Although there is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil
cases, the Court has discretion to recruit counsel to represent indigent litigants in
appropriate circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006
(7th Cir. 2006). Two questions guide a court’s discretionary decision whether to recruit
Page 1 of 3

counsel: (1) “has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or
been effectively precluded from doing so,” and (2) “given the difficulty of the case, does
the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933, 938 (7th
Cir. 2018).
Because there is no dispute that Santiago made a reasonable attempt to obtain
counsel for himself but was unable to do so, the Court focuses on the second prong of the
test, i.e., whether Santiago appears competent to litigate the case himself given the
complexity of the case.
While there are no “fixed requirements” for determining a litigant’s ability to
handle the case on his own, the Seventh Circuit has directed district courts to consider
the party’s “literacy, communication skills, education level, and litigation experience as
well as any available evidence of his intellectual capacity and psychological history” as
those factors relate to litigation of the case. Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933, 940 (7th Cir. 2018)
(quotations omitted).
Based on these factors, the Court finds there is nothing clearly erroneous or
contrary to law in Judge Beatty’s order. Although Santiago argues he has limited
knowledge of the law, that concern is not unique to a pro se litigant and, at this stage of
the litigation, does not, by itself, warrant appointed counsel. The undersigned’s review
of Santiago’s pleadings demonstrates that he is able to read, write, and understand
English, and, in fact, he appears to understand the litigation process quite well. If
Santiago is having difficulty receiving discovery responses from Defendants, the proper
way to bring that to the Court’s attention is to file a motion to compel, concisely and
clearly stating what the issue is.
Page 2 of 3

For these reasons, the objection filed by Plaintiff Fabian Santiago (Doc. 112) is
OVERRULED, and Judge Beatty’s Order (Doc. 110) is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 12, 2019
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3