THOMPSON v. CONANT et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying plaintiff's 13 Motion for Reconsideration for the denial of his Motion for Appointment of Counsel (S.O.). Copy mailed. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 10/4/2012. (MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ROGER THOMPSON,

vs.
DR. CONANT, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )

1:12-cv-1177-SEB-TAB

ENTRY
“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 . . . .” Patel v. Gonzales 442 F.3d 1011, 1015-1016 (7th Cir. 2006). The
plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the recent denial of his motion for appointment of
counsel meets none of these standards.
Additionally, although the plaintiff has now demonstrated that he has made
a reasonable effort to secure representation on his own, his filings thus far show
that, given the difficulty of the case, he is competent to litigate it himself. See Pruitt
v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653, 655 (7th Cir. 2007)(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)(en banc).
Based on the foregoing, therefore, the motion to reconsider [13] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/04/2012
Date: __________________
_______________________________

Distribution:
Roger Thompson
DOC #926378
Plainfield Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168

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