SHULL v. CAST et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 21 Motion for appointment of Counsel (S.O.) cm. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/18/2010. (MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FREDERICK H. SHULL, JR., Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM R. CAST, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:10-cv-0463-SEB-WGH

ENTRY The plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel (dkt 21) has been considered. The plaintiff asserts that he has been unsuccessful in recruiting representation on his own. Although the court concludes, based on the above filing, that the plaintiff has made a reasonable effort to secure representation, he should continue his own efforts. The court proceeds to the second inquiry required in these circumstances. The court's task in this second inquiry is to analyze the plaintiff's abilities as related to "the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial." Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the question is not whether an attorney would help the plaintiff's case, but whether, given the difficulty of the case, the plaintiff seems competent to litigate it himself. Id. at 653-655. At this point, and based on the plaintiff's comprehensible filings, his use of the court's processes, his familiarity with both the factual circumstances surrounding his claims and with the legal issues associated with those claims, the plaintiff is competent to litigate on his own. Based on the foregoing, therefore, the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (dkt 21) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

06/18/2010

_______________________________ SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: Frederick H. Shull Jr. 6130 Carvel Ave. #32 Indianapolis, IN 46220