Burgher v. Doe et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Dennis Corey Burgher. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 12/16/14. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
DENNIS COREY BURGHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 1:14-CV-00266

OPINION and ORDER
Before the Court is a motion by pro se Plaintiff Dennis Burgher (Docket # 3), who is
currently incarcerated, asking that the Court recruit counsel for him in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging various civil rights violations by Defendants during his incarceration in the Grant
County Jail in 2012. “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)).
Although Burgher says that he has “made repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer,” he does
not provide any specifics about these attempts that would allow the Court to assess the
reasonableness of his efforts. See Jackson v. Cnty. 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 Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 700 (7th Cir. 2008); Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d
649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004).

Furthermore, Burgher’s request for counsel is premature. The complaint has not yet been
screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and Defendants have not appeared and filed an
answer. Thus, “the case [is] still in its infancy, thereby making it impossible at th[is] juncture to
make any accurate determination regarding [Burgher’s] abilities or the outcome of the lawsuit.”1
Romanelli, 615 F.3d at 852; see also Mungiovi v. Chicago Housing Auth., No. 94 C 6663, 1994
WL 735413, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 1994) (“The court’s general practice is to consider
appointment of counsel if and when it appears that the action has sufficient merit to require
complex discovery or an evidentiary hearing.”).
Therefore, Burgher’s request that the Court recruit counsel for him (Docket # 3) is
DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 16th day of December 2014.
s/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Of course, Burgher’s statement that he has made “repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer but . . . no one is
willing to take on this case without payment” (Mot. for Appointment of Counsel ¶ 4) is an indication that his case
may have little merit and that appointing counsel will not make a difference in the case’s ultimate outcome. See
Cnty. of McLean, 953 F.2d at 1073 (considering plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to retain counsel when denying his
motion to appoint counsel).