JACKSON v. ROGERS et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The plaintiff continues to have through September 21, 2015, in which show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Copy to Mail via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/15/2015. (MAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
RICHARD ROGER ROGERS JR., MD, and
KEITH HALL, EMT-P,
) Case No. 1:15-cv-01309-TWP-DKL
Entry Denying Motion for Counsel
The plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel has been considered. Contrary to the
plaintiff’s assertion that he has a right to a legal paralegal, “[t]here 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)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may
request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant, however, the decision whether to recruit pro
bono counsel is left to the discretion of the district court. Olson, 750 F.3d at 711; Pruitt, 503 F.3d
at 658. “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.” Olson, 750 F.3d at 711. Further complicating plaintiff’s request is that
he specifically seeks “appointment of counsel that does mental complaints in the yellow pages.”
In this case, the Court has discerned that the plaintiff’s claims are outside the scope of its
limited jurisdiction. Therefore, this is not a case in which it would be reasonable for the Court to
attempt to recruit counsel. The plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel [dkt. 8] is denied.
The plaintiff continues to have through September 21, 2015, in which show cause why
this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Robert Jackson, P. O. Box 2800, Indianapolis, IN 46206
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?