RICHARDSON v. BROWN et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying plaintiff's 26 Motion for Default Judgment; denying plaintiff's 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 29 Motion for extension of time to 4/25/2012 for parties to complete written discovery and discovery requests ; denying plaintiff's 30 Motion for discovery. (S.O) (copy to plaintiff via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/30/2012. (MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MARCUS RICHARDSON,

vs.
DICK BROWN, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )

2:11-cv-161-JMS-WGH

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are
pending, makes the following rulings:
1.
The plaintiff’s motion for discovery [30] is denied. The reason for this
ruling is that the motion does not properly seek the production of documents in the
manner authorized by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.
Relief sought in the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time [29] is
granted, consistent with the following: The parties shall have through April 25,
2012, in which to complete written discovery and discovery depositions.
3.
The plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [26] is denied. The reason
for this ruling is that the defendants are not in default, which is evident because the
defendants timely filed an answer to the complaint on January 3, 2012. The
plaintiff fails to note that the legal holiday of January 1, 2012, was observed on
January 2, 2012.
4.

The plaintiff=s motion for appointment of counsel has been considered.

a.
The plaintiff has shown a meager effort to recruit counsel from
the private market. He should continue that effort.
b.
If a further inquiry is thought warranted, it would be to analyze
the plaintiff=s abilities as related to “the tasks that normally attend litigation:
evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court
filings, and trial.” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). The
court finds, in this case and at present, that the claims asserted by the
plaintiff are not of sufficient complexity or merit as to surpass the plaintiff's

ability to properly develop and present them. First of all, the complaint shows
that the plaintiff understands his claims from the standpoint of both its legal
basis and its factual underpinnings. Second, the plaintiff appears to be
literate, to have access to writing materials, and to have an understanding of
the court=s processes. As the case develops, the court anticipates that the
plaintiff will demonstrate his understanding of the need to adhere to
timetables, to work with counsel for the defendants in developing the case for
trial or other resolution, and so forth. The plaintiff=s claims and the need to
responsibly proceed with the development of the case do not appear, at
present, to be of a complexity which exceeds the plaintiff=s ability to present,
even without the guiding hand of counsel. Accordingly, the plaintiff=s motion
for appointment of counsel [27] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

01/30/2012
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
MARCUS RICHARDSON
DOC #944814
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. BOX 500
CARLISLE, IN 47838
All Electronically Registered Counsel