KELLY v. TALBIT, M.D. et al
ENTRY denying 84 Motion for Reconsideration. Mr. Kelly should not file a motion for assistance with recruiting counsel in future litigation in this Court. If he does so, he must reference this order and identify special circumstances that warrant the recruitment of counsel to represent him despite the instructions in this order. See order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/11/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ) Modified on 10/12/2017 to clarify distribution (MEJ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
PAUL TALBIT, M.D.,
HOUMAN KIANI, M.D.,
NURSE PRACTITIONER BRUBAKER,
The Court recruited Curtis Jones as volunteer counsel to assist plaintiff Richard Kelly in
conducting discovery in this case. As the Court has previously explained, volunteer counsel
provided excellent service to Mr. Kelly. Nonetheless, Mr. Kelly sent Mr. Jones a Notice of Tort
Claim asserting that Mr. Jones failed to conduct discovery properly. Because the record reflected
that this statement is patently false and because this Court has a limited pool of attorneys from
whom it may ask for volunteer service, Mr. Kelly was directed to show cause why he should not
be barred from receiving the Court’s assistance in recruiting counsel in future litigation. Mr.
Kelly responds asserting that he does not seek to bring any civil complaint against Mr. Jones, but
that Mr. Jones would not seek certain non-party discovery on his behalf and would not conduct
depositions of the defendants. He also states that Mr. Jones had no intention of representing him
at trial, would not move to amend Mr. Kelly’s complaint to seek punitive damages, and did not
convince this Court that Mr. Kelly required an expert opinion from a neurologist and an
None of Mr. Kelly’s assertions are sufficient to show that he should be entitled to receive
this Court’s assistance in recruiting counsel in future litigation. Mr. Jones was recruited to
represent Mr. Kelly for purposes of discovery only. Thus, there could be no misconduct on his
part by not performing duties related to aspects of the case that were not associated with
discovery. In addition, Mr. Kelly has not shown that, although he assertedly did not conduct all
of the discovery Mr. Kelly desired, Mr. Jones did not perform his duties properly and sufficiently
to allow Mr. Kelly to prosecute this case at this stage. Finally, the recruitment of counsel does
not mean that counsel must succeed on every dispute before the Court. There is therefore no
basis to conclude that Mr. Jones shirked his duties simply by failing to convince the Court that
opinions from a neurologist and an orthopedist would be helpful to the Court at this time.
For these reasons, Mr. Kelly has failed to show that he should not be barred from
receiving the Court’s assistance in recruiting counsel in future litigation. His motion to
reconsider in which he asks this Court to recruit a lawyer to represent him in this case, dkt. ,
Mr. Kelly should not file a motion for assistance with recruiting counsel in future
litigation in this Court. If he does so, he must reference this order and identify special
circumstances that warrant the recruitment of counsel to represent him despite the
instructions in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to:
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
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?