Trainauskas v. Fralicker et al

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING 21 MOTION for Reconsideration and DENYING 33 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 12/14/2018. (jkb2)

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

BRIAN TRAINAUSKAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARTON J. FRALICKER, C/O
MCCARTHY, KENT E. BROOKMAN
and JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-cv-00193-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Brian Trainauskas’ two Motions for
Reconsideration of this Court’s Order denying motion for recruitment of counsel (Docs. 21, 33).
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment to
correct manifest errors of law or fact, to address newly discovered evidence, or where there has
been an intervening and substantial change in the controlling law since submission of the issues
to the district court. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); See also Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese
Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan
Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Motions to reconsider under Rule 59(e)
should only be granted in rare circumstances. Id. The decision whether to grant a Rule 59(e)
Motion to Reconsider lies in the sound discretion of the Court. Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314,
324 (7th Cir. 1996).
On April 27, 2018, this Court entered an order denying Trainauskas’ motion to appoint
counsel (Doc. 2). Trainauskas has moved this Court to reconsider that decision. (Docs. 21, 33).

Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed attorney in this
matter. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),
however, a court has discretion to recruit counsel to represent indigents in appropriate cases.
Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). In its order denying
counsel, the Court specifically stated that Trainauskas had failed to provide evidence that he is
indigent (Doc. 14, p. 1). The Court noted that Trainauskas had not filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, and that his prior action in this Court, 17-cv-816-SMY, was dismissed because
he misstated his income in his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma paueris (Doc. 14, p. 7).
Nothing in Trainauskas’ motions for reconsideration leads the Court to the conclusion
that it erred in its original Order. While Trainauskas alleges he is indigent, he provides no new
evidence to support that claim (Docs. 21, 33). Given his prior misstatements to the Court
regarding his income, the Court is unwilling to find Trainauskas is indigent absent supporting
evidence. Thus, there appears to be no manifest error of law or fact that would justify
reconsideration of the Court’s initial order denying counsel. Nothing in this Order, however,
prevents Trainauskas from filing another motion for appointment of counsel and providing actual
evidence of his indigency.
Finally, while Trainauskas argues he has attempted to obtain counsel to no avail, and that
the complexities of his case are beyond his ability to litigate (Doc. 33, pp. 2-3), none of those
facts are relevant unless Trainauskas can first show he is indigent.
Thus, Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration (Docs 21, 33) are DENIED.
So Ordered.
DATED: December 14, 2018

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 2 of 2