HERRON v. LOCKETT et al
Filing
45
ENTRY - The plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel has been considered. The plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 44 is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/21/2014. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
BRIAN HERRON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LT. D. MEYER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-109-JMS-WGH
ENTRY
The plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel has been considered. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), courts are empowered only to “request” counsel. Mallard v. United States District
Court, 490 U.S. 296, 300 (1989). “When confronted with a request . . . for pro bono counsel, the
district court is to make the following inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable
attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the
difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647, 654-655 (7th Cir. 2007). 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 (7th Cir. 1993). The
plaintiff asserts that he has contacted 24 lawyers and legal assistance organizations without
success in obtaining representation. Although the Court concludes, based on the above filing,
that the plaintiff has made a reasonable effort to secure representation, he should continue his
own effort.
The Court proceeds to the second inquiry required in these circumstances. The Court’s
task in this second inquiry is 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, 503 F.3d at 655. Accordingly, the question is not whether an
attorney would help the plaintiff’s case, but whether, given the difficulty of the case, the plaintiff
seems competent to litigate it himself. Id. at 653-655. The Court will not make an outright
request that counsel represent the plaintiff at this time because based on the plaintiff’s
comprehensible filings, his use of the Court’s processes, the assistance he has received in prison,
and his familiarity with his claims, the plaintiff has been competent to litigate on his own. The
Court will, however, be alert to the possibility of recruiting representation for the plaintiff at trial
or at other points in the case where the plaintiff’s incarceration and pro se status would make it
particularly difficult for him to proceed without representation, and to the possibility at those
points where the assistance of counsel would be a benefit to both the plaintiff and the Court in
the presentation of the case. The Court also reminds the plaintiff that if he has a reasonable need
for additional time to meet any particular deadline, he may file a motion for extension of time.
Based on the foregoing, therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [dkt.
44] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
03/21/2014
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Brian Herron, 07930-033, Tucson United States Penitentiary, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box
24550, Tucson, AZ 85734
Electronically registered counsel
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?