Tucovic v. Hogan et al
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 25 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Jasmina Tucovic. Pla is free to attempt to secure cnsl on her own. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 7/28/2011. (lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JASMINA TUCOVIC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF HOGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:10-cv-387
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a motion to appoint counsel filed by pro se Plaintiff Jasmina Tucovic,
requesting that this Court appoint an attorney to represent her in this employment discrimination
case. (Docket # 25.) This is Tucovic’s second request for appointment of counsel; her first
request was denied by District Judge Van Bokkelen on July 13, 2011. (Docket # 24.)
Civil litigants do not have a right, either constitutional or statutory, to court-appointed
counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288
(7th Cir. 1995). Rather, district courts are empowered to appoint an attorney to represent a
plaintiff without charge when she is “unable to afford counsel”, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), or in
Title VII cases “in such circumstances as the court may deem just”, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
Here, as explained above, Tucovic’s first plea for the appointment of counsel has already
been reviewed and denied by the District Court. (Docket # 24.) Yet, she fails to produce any
new facts or circumstances in the instant motion upon which to change the outcome of her first
request for counsel.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Tucovic has made any effort to secure her own
counsel. See Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004) (“In determining whether to appoint
counsel for an indigent plaintiff . . . , a court must ‘first determine if the indigent has made
reasonable efforts to retain counsel and was unsuccessful . . . .’”) (quoting Jackson v. County of
McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992)). Moreover, the Court has already appointed
counsel for Tucovic in her companion employment discrimination case against Wal-Mart, her
employer. See Tucovic v. Wal-Mart, No. 1:09-cv-148 (filed June 2, 2009).
In addition, a brief look at the merits of Tucovic’s complaint also weighs against the
appointment of counsel. In fact, the District Court struck her original complaint because it failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Docket # 18.) The District Court explained,
for example, that Tucovic cannot state a claim against Walker under Title VII because Walker
was not her employer. Although Tucovic has since filed an amended complaint, it too is
currently subject to a motion to dismiss by Defendants. (See Docket # 20.)
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Tucovic’s second motion to appoint counsel
(Docket # 25) is DENIED. She, of course, is free to attempt to secure counsel on her own.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 28th day of July, 2011.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?