HUBBARD v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al

Filing 176

ORDER Denying Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel - For the reasons explained above, the plaintiff is competent to litigate the case himself at this time. His motion for assistance with recruiting counsel, dkt. 167 , is therefore denied (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 8/17/2020. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)

Case 1:18-cv-01229-JPH-MPB Document 176 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 896

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BYRON HUBBARD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, et al.
Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01229-JPH-MPB

Order Denying Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel
The plaintiff asks the Court to assist him with recruiting counsel to represent him in this
case. Litigants in federal civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to courtappointed counsel. Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933, 938 (7th Cir. 2018). Instead, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) gives courts the authority to "request" counsel. Mallard v. United States District Court,
490 U.S. 296, 300 (1989). As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and qualified
to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th
Cir. 2014) ("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.").
"Two questions guide [this] court's discretionary decision whether to recruit counsel: (1)
'has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so,' and (2) 'given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear
competent to litigate it himself?'" Walker, 900 F.3d at 938 (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
654-55 (7th Cir. 2007)).

1

Case 1:18-cv-01229-JPH-MPB Document 176 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 897

As a threshold matter, litigants must make a reasonable attempt to secure private counsel
on their own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Anderson, 912
F.3d 971, 978 (7th Cir. 2019) (because neither of the plaintiff's requests for counsel showed that
he tried to obtain counsel on his own or that he was precluded from doing so, the judge's denial of
these requests was not an abuse of discretion) (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654–55 (7th Cir. 2007)
(en banc); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851–52 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining that the denial
of a motion to recruit counsel was justified by the district court's finding that the plaintiff had not
tried to obtain counsel)). Based on the plaintiff's filing, the Court concludes that he has made a
reasonable effort to obtain counsel. He should continue those efforts.
To decide the second question, the Court considers "'whether the difficulty of the case—
factually and legally—exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently
present it to the judge or jury himself.'" Olson, 750 F.3d at 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Pruitt, 503
F.3d at 655). These questions require an individualized assessment of the plaintiff, the claims, and
the stage of litigation. The Seventh Circuit has specifically declined to find a presumptive right to
counsel in some categories of cases. McCaa v Hamilton, 893 F.3d 1027, 1037 (7th Cir. 2018)
(Hamilton, J., concurring); Walker, 900 F.3d at 939.
It is this Court's determination that the plaintiff's current motion for counsel reflects that he
is competent to litigate this action on his own at this time. The plaintiff asserts that he has attended
college. But he states that he has head and wrist injuries that make it difficult for him to read and
write and that he suffers from migraines, reduced memory, and lack of concentration, among other
things. The plaintiff's filings in this action reflect that he is able to read and write and has prepared
his own documents for filing in this case. His claims are that he was denied certain privileges
because of his disabilities and that he was denied certain medical care. He has thus far been able

2

Case 1:18-cv-01229-JPH-MPB Document 176 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 898

to adequately state those claims and his requests for relief. The Court is alert to his housing
difficulties and to the extent that this situation makes it more difficult for him to pursue his claims,
he may renew his request or seek extensions of time and such requests will be considered.
For the reasons explained above, the plaintiff is competent to litigate the case himself at
this time. His motion for assistance with recruiting counsel, dkt. [167], is therefore denied.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/17/2020

Distribution:
BYRON HUBBARD
275 Medical Drive
Suite 4477
Carmel, IN 46032

All Electronically Registered Counsel

3