HUBBARD v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al

Filing 188

ORDER Denying Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Stay - For the reasons explained above, the plaintiff is competent to litigate the case himself at this time. His motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to appoint counsel, dkt. 183 , is t herefore denied. The Court notes that his motion, which contains numerous requests, violates the requirement of Local Rule 7-1 that "Motions must be filed separately." But the Court will address Mr. Hubbard's request for a stay in a ddition to his request for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to appoint counsel. Mr. Hubbard's request for a stay is denied. However, the parties shall have through December 3, 2020, to complete discovery and January 4, 2021, to file dispositive motions (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 11/10/2020. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)

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 to Reconsider and Motion to Stay
In his motion to reconsider and motion to stay, plaintiff Byron Hubbard renews his request
for appointment of counsel and asks the Court to stay the proceedings in this case. In support, he
states that he is approved to attend treatment at the Veterans Administration Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder Inpatient Treatment Center.
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)).
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
1

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)). The Court has previously concluded that he has made a reasonable effort
to recruit counsel on his own. Dkt. 176. 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.
As the Court previously explained, the plaintiff is competent to litigate this action on his
own at this time. Dkt. 176. 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. He has been able to adequately state his
claims and his requests for relief. Further, the Court previously explained that to the extent that his
housing situation makes it difficult for him to pursue his claims, he may seek extensions of time as are
reasonable. Id.

For the reasons explained above, the plaintiff is competent to litigate the case himself at
this time. His motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to appoint counsel, dkt. [183], is
therefore denied. The Court notes that his motion, which contains numerous requests, violates the
requirement of Local Rule 7-1 that "Motions must be filed separately." But the Court will address
2

Mr. Hubbard's request for a stay in addition to his request for reconsideration of the denial of his
motion to appoint counsel. Mr. Hubbard's request for a stay is denied. However, the parties shall
have through December 3, 2020, to complete discovery and January 4, 2021, to file dispositive
motions.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/10/2020

3

Distribution:
BYRON HUBBARD
275 Medical Drive
Suite 4477
Carmel, IN 46032
All Electronically Registered Counsel

4