SMITH v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CORIZON et al

Filing 56

ENTRY Discussing Selected Matters - Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. no. 53 ), Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. no. 54 ) and Motion to Appoint Counsel for Purposes of Obtaining Discovery for Preparation of Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 55 ) are DENIED. *SEE ENTRY*. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/22/2012. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ERIC SMITH,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS, DOE
)
DEFENDANTS, CORIZON,
)
)
Defendants. )

1:12-cv-159-TWP-MJD

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
The motion to reconsider the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction
has been considered. The reason for the denial of the motion for preliminary
injunction was the plaintiff’s transfer to another institution. His claim that the
“same defendants” are associated with his health care at the institution where he is
presently confined does not support the viability of his claim for injunctive relief at
the prison where he was formerly confined. Accordingly, his motion for
reconsideration [Dkt. 53] is denied. See Patel v. Gonzales 442 F.3d 1011, 1015-1016
(7th Cir. 2006) (“A motion to reconsider asks that a decision be reexamined in light
of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or an argument that was overlooked
earlier . . . .”).

II.
A.
The motion for appointment of counsel to obtain discovery for preparation of
summary judgment [Dkt. 55] is denied because plaintiff has not shown that the
litigation activities sketched in this motion are those that he is allowed to conduct,
either with or without representation by counsel.
B.
The motion for appointment of counsel has likewise been considered.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are empowered only to "request"
counsel. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 300 (1989). There is
no constitutional right to an attorney in a civil proceeding. Jackson v. Kotter, 541
F.3d 688, 700 (7th Cir. 2008). 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 themselves. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
653, 655 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
The court finds at present, that the claims asserted by the plaintiff are not of
sufficient complexity or merit as to surpass the plaintiff’s ability to properly develop
and present them. Regardless, the plaintiff is within the spectrum of “most indigent
parties” because he has and will have a meaningful opportunity to present his
claims. He has demonstrated familiarity with his claims and the ability to present
them. Having considered the complexity of the claims and the plaintiff’s his ability

to litigate them, this is not a case in which at present it is appropriate to seek
representation for the plaintiff.
Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt.
54] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

08/22/2012
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
Eric Smith
112675
Westville Correctional
5501 South 1100 West
Westville, IN 46391
All Electronically Registered Counsel