Dixie v. Seay et al
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 5 Pla's request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 9/18/2012. (lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
KEVIN LEE DIXIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES SEAY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:12-CV-00278
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a request for appointment of counsel (Docket # 5) filed by pro se
Plaintiff Kevin Dixie in this case alleging various civil rights violations by Defendants. In
response to his motion, the Court instructed Dixie to submit a Questionnaire for Appointment of
Counsel (Docket # 7), which included the requirement that Dixie provide the names of at least
three attorneys he contacted and the reasons they refused to take his case.
“When a pro se litigant submits a request for court-appointed counsel, the district court
must first consider whether the indigent plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel
on his own, or conversely, if he has been precluded from doing so.” Romanelli v. Suliene, 615
F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2010)). “Next,
the district court must evaluate the complexity of the case and whether the plaintiff appears
competent to litigate it on his own.”1 Id. (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654-55).
Here, on his completed Questionnaire, Dixie represented that he has not contacted any
attorneys concerning his case. (See Questionnaire for Appointment of Counsel ¶ 6.) His failure
1
Of course, “[t]here is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases.” Romanelli, 615
F.3d at 851 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 656); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006)).
“Nevertheless, the district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request counsel for an indigent
litigant.” Id. (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654).
to satisfy this threshold requirement is fatal to his request for appointment of counsel. See
Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992) (“If . . . the indigent has
made no reasonable attempts to secure counsel (unless circumstances prevented him from doing
so), the court should deny any § 1915(d) motions outright.”); see also Romanelli, 2010 WL
3155926, at *4; Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 700 (7th Cir. 2008); 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 County of McLean, 953 F.2d at 1073)).
As a result, Dixie’s request for appointment of counsel (Docket # 5) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 18th day of September, 2012.
/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?