ABERNATHY v. SANDERS

Filing 33

*** PLEASE disregard Duplicate Entry of 32 *** ENTRY - For reasons explained in this Entry, the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 31 is denied. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/15/2011. (copy to plaintiff via U.S. mail) (NKD) Modified on 8/15/2011 (NKD).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA STEVE ABERNATHY, Plaintiff, vs. BILL SANDERS, Sheriff of Fountain County, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:11-cv-86-JMS-WGH ENTRY The plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Indiana Code 34-10-1-2 has been considered. In that motion the plaintiff, who is confined at an Indiana prison, seeks the appointment of counsel. The statute cited by the plaintiff as providing the basis for the relief he seeks is not applicable in federal court. The motion itself, moreover, was not served on counsel for the defendant; this plaintiff is an experienced civil litigant in the federal courts and knows better. Apart from the foregoing matters, litigants requesting that counsel be recruited must show as a threshold matter that they made a reasonable attempt to secure private counsel. Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). 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, 321 (7th Cir. 1993). The plaintiff’s motion makes no reference to having made this effort or of being prevented from doing so. For all these reasons, therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel [31] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 08/15/2011 _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: Kyle A. Jones NORRIS CHOPLIN & SCHROEDER LLP kjones@ncs-law.com Steve Abernathy DOC #882844 Westville Correctional Facility Inmate Mail/Parcels 5501 South 1100 West Westville, IN 46391

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?