Docks v. Department of Homeland Security
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 10/3/12. cc: Docks (mc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
QUENTIN T. DOCKS,
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,)
)
Defendant
)
CIVIL NO. 2:10-cv-99
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Reconsider
the Application for an Appointed Attorney [DE 14] filed by the
plaintiff, Quentin T. Docks, on July 19, 2012.
The plaintiff filed his first motion for appointment of
counsel on June 23, 2010.
The court denied his motion, advising
Docks that he must submit an affidavit of his efforts to secure
counsel.
Docks filed an affidavit and asked the court to recon-
sider his motion.
The court denied his motion to reconsider,
explaining that the record reflected that Docks was literate and
coherent.
On June 21, 2012, the court issued a show cause order
because, although Docks served the Department of Homeland Security, he failed to serve the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Indiana.
Docks subsequently served the
United States Attorney as directed and filed a second motion to
reconsider the denial of his motion to appoint counsel on July
19, 2012.
His motion reiterates the history of the case and asks
the court to appoint him an attorney without providing any
further explanation why he is unable to represent himself.
The court does not appoint an attorney to every litigant who
faces a financial hardship.
Rather, the court must weigh the
complexity of the case with the apparent abilities of the liti-
Gruenberg v. Gempeler, No. 10-
gant as reflected by the docket.
3391, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 4372512, *5 (7th Cir. 2012); Pruitt
v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656 (7th Cir. 2007).
Docks has made no
effort to demonstrate that he is incapable of representing himself.
His filings are legible and comprehensible, and he has
demonstrated that he understands and can comply with court
orders.
Absent some demonstration that he lacks the capabilities
to advocate on his behalf, Docks is not entitled to court appointed counsel and his motion is DENIED.
ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2012
s/ ANDREW P. RODOVICH
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?