Saterfield v. Baldwin et al

Filing 122

ORDER assigning Attorney Jennifer L. Maloney for Lloyd Saterfield.( Attorney Appearance due by 9/27/2019); GRANTING 102 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Lloyd Saterfield; DENYING without prejudice 90 MOTION for Reconsideration, 83 MOT ION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Lloyd Saterfield, 12 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Lloyd Saterfield, 108 MOTION to Supplement filed by Lloyd Saterfield, 90 Motion for Reconsideration; finding as moot 104 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 106 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 9/13/2019. (kll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LLOYD SATERFIELD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEPHEN RITZ,
ROBERT SMITH, and
MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-cv-560-JPG-GCS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. See

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.

See 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. See 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).
The circumstances presented in this case warrant recruitment of counsel.

See Santiago, 599 F.3d at 765 (stating that “[t]he situation here is qualitatively

different from typical prison litigation.”). The record reflects that Plaintiff is having
difficulty with the discovery process and with the following the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Further, the Court finds that the case now is at the point where the
difficulty of the case exceeds Plaintiff’s ability to “coherently present it to the judge or
jury himself.” See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, 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), attorney Jennifer
Maloney of Heyl Royster is ASSIGNED to represent Plaintiff Lloyd Saterfield in this
civil rights case. On or before September 27, 2019, assigned counsel shall enter her
appearance in this case. Attorney Maloney 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.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit this Order and copies of the
docket sheet and Docs. 72, 110, 111, 113, and 114 to attorney Maloney. The electronic
case file is available through the CM-ECF system.
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

Page 2 of 5

Plaintiff, there is no guarantee the Court will appoint other counsel to represent
Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions filed by Plaintiff pro se
are DENIED without prejudice so that assigned counsel can evaluate how to proceed.
Counsel is ADVISED to consult Local Rules 83.8-83.14 regarding pro bono
case procedures.
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

Authorization/Certification for Reimbursement.

expenses

and

an

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

Page 3 of 5

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 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 - Guide for Attorneys Recruited to Represent Plaintiffs in
Section 1983 Cases.” The Court encourages you to consult it and Mr. Chapman as
needed.
As of this date, Plaintiff’s contact information is:
Lloyd Saterfield, #K53497
Western Illinois Correctional Center
2500 Route 99 South
Mount Sterling, IL 62353

Page 4 of 5

Digitally signed by
Magistrate Judge
Gilbert C. Sison
Date: 2019.09.13
12:03:17 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 13, 2019.

______________________________
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5