Scruggs v. Miller et al
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING re 156 Motion to Appoint Counsel and DENYING all other relief requested in the plaintiff's motion re 208 Motion for the Request of Missing Documents / Future Filings Copies. The clerk is DIRECTED to send plaintiff a current docket sheet. (Docket sheet mailed 11/21/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 11/20/17. (sct)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER L. SCRUGGS,
STG. MILLER, et al.,
Cause No. 3:16-CV-050-JD-MGG
Christopher L. Scruggs, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF
156. “There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750
F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007)). However,
in some circumstances, the court may ask an attorney to volunteer to represent an indigent party for
free. “When confronted with a request under § 1915(e)(1) for pro bono counsel, the district court
is to make the following inquiries: (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?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.
2007) (en banc).
While Scruggs claims that he has contacted 20 attorneys for representation in his various
cases (ECF 156 at 1), he has yet to receive any responses. Notably, there is no indication when
Scruggs sent out this letter or who he sent it to. Nevertheless, even if Scruggs had made a reasonable
attempt to obtain counsel on his own, he has not demonstrated that the case is too difficult or that
he is not competent to litigate it own his own.
The decision whether to recruit pro bono counsel is grounded in a two-fold inquiry
into both the difficulty of the plaintiff’s claims and the plaintiff’s competence to
litigate those claims himself. The inquiries are necessarily intertwined; the difficulty
of the case is considered against the plaintiff’s litigation capabilities, and those
capabilities are examined in light of the challenges specific to the case at hand. The
question is not whether a lawyer would present the case more effectively than the pro
se plaintiff; if that were the test, district judges would be required to request counsel
for every indigent litigant. Rather, the question is whether the difficulty of the
case—factually and legally—exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a
layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.
Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655 (quotation marks and citations omitted). There are no fixed requirements for
determining a plaintiff’s competence to litigate his own case, but the court should take into
consideration the plaintiff’s “literacy, communication skills, educational level, and litigation
experience.” Id. In the end, “[t]he inquiry into the plaintiff’s capacity to handle his own case is a
practical one, made in light of whatever relevant evidence is available on the question.” Id.
“Whether to recruit an attorney is a difficult decision: Almost everyone would benefit from having
a lawyer, but there are too many indigent litigants and too few lawyers willing and able to volunteer
for these cases. District courts are thus placed in the unenviable position of identifying, among a sea
of people lacking counsel, those who need counsel the most.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711
(7th Cir. 2014). “The inquiry into the plaintiff’s capacity to handle his own case is a practical one,
made in light of whatever relevant evidence is available on the question.” Henderson v. Ghosh, 755
F.3d 559, 565 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655).
Here, Scruggs does not indicate his education level. However, being familiar with many of
his filings, it is clear that he is literate and knowledgeable about the facts of his case. In the past
three years, he has litigated a number of lawsuits in this court and he has filed numerous motions.
The issue in this case is not complex. It is limited to the interaction between Scruggs and four
Westville Correctional Facility officers. He alleges that these defendants used excessive force
against him on three occasions. Scruggs knows what he occurred on these dates. Thus, the facts of
this case are personally known to Scruggs. Scruggs complains about limited access to the law
library, but this is not a basis to appoint counsel. Among the numerous inmates who are proceeding
pro se in this court, Scruggs is not one of the most in need of an attorney. Based on the above, the
motion will be denied. However, if at any point Scruggs needs additional time to comply with any
deadline due to his pro se status or his limited access to the law library, he may request an extension
in writing explaining why additional time is needed.
Next, Scruggs filed a motion (ECF 208) asking for copies of twenty (20) filed documents
that were apparently lost when he was transferred from Westville to Wabash Valley. However, upon
review of those twenty docket entries, the court can not discern why Scruggs would need any of
those documents. Moreover, Scruggs does not explain why he needs any of them. Surely, if these
documents are necessary and unavailable to Scruggs, the court will provide him with a free copy.
Otherwise, copies are $.50 per page and Scruggs is not entitled to free copies or other public subsidy
of the costs of litigating this case, even though he is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Lindell v.
McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1111 (7th Cir. 2003) (indigent pro se prisoner had no “constitutional
entitlement to subsidy. . . to prosecute a civil suit”); Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir.
1998) (“All § 1915 has ever done is excuse pre-payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains liable
for them, and for other costs”) (emphasis in original). In the interest of justice, the court will direct
the clerk to send Scruggs a current docket sheet free of charge, but all other requested relief will be
denied. After reviewing the docket, Scruggs may re-file his motion and explain what documents, if
any, he needs out of the twenty that he is missing.
For these reasons, the motion (ECF 156) for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The clerk
is DIRECTED to send the plaintiff a current docket sheet. All other relief requested in the plaintiff’s
motion (ECF 208) is DENIED.
Dated this 20th Day of November, 2017.
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
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?