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).
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?