GORE v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/30/2014 (dist made) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JERRY A. GORE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. WILLIAM WOLFE,
NURSE C. MEYERS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-0241-JMS-DML

ENTRY
The plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel has 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). “When confronted with a request . . . 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, 654-655 (7th Cir. 2007). The Court must deny “out of hand” a request for
counsel made without a showing of such effort. Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319 (7th Cir. 1993).
Here, the plaintiff’s only identified effort to obtain counsel has been to contact the Allen County
Bar Association (dkt. 22). As such, the second motion for the appointment of counsel must be
denied out of hand.
Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel [dkt.
22] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
07/30/2014

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Date: __________________

Distribution:
Jerry A. Gore
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
Electronically registered counsel