Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 14 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 62
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB
`
`
`COREY JAMES SMITH,
`
`
`
`
`
`REAGLE, et al.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL
`
`The plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, dkt. [3], has been considered. Litigants
`
`in federal civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to court-appointed counsel.
`
`Thomas v. Wardell, 951 F.3d 854, 859 (7th Cir. 2020). Instead, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) gives courts
`
`the authority to "request" counsel. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 300
`
`(1989). 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 v. Price, 900 F.3d 933, 938 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting
`
`Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007)).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 14 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 63
`
`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
`
`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)). Here, the plaintiff has reasonably attempted to secure private counsel.
`
`His motion reflects that he has contacted six attorneys without success. He should continue his
`
`attempts to recruit counsel on his own.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`The plaintiff's current motion for counsel reflects that he is competent to litigate this action
`
`on his own.1 His claim that he was held in long-term segregation without due process is relatively
`
`straightforward. He has personal knowledge of the alleged events. Although he reports that he
`
`dropped out of school after completing seventh grade and has a learning disability that affects his
`
`reading comprehension, his complaint and other filings indicate that the plaintiff's reading and
`
`
`1 If the plaintiff's claims survive summary judgment, the Court will undertake efforts to recruit counsel to
`assist him at trial.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 14 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 64
`
`writing skills are sufficient to litigate this case through summary judgment. He states that he suffers
`
`from post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, and depression, which affects his ability to focus.
`
`He also has limited knowledge of the law.
`
`The plaintiff's current motion reflects that he faces the same challenges as nearly all
`
`prisoners proceeding pro se. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, "imprisonment only
`
`exacerbates the already substantial difficulties that all pro se litigants face. But Congress hasn't
`
`provided lawyers for indigent prisoners; instead it gave district courts discretion to ask lawyers to
`
`volunteer their services in some cases." Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014). Given
`
`the massive amount of pro se prisoner litigation, it is simply impossible to recruit pro bono counsel
`
`for each of these cases.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, the plaintiff is simply not one of the many pro se prisoners that requires
`
`the assistance of counsel. The plaintiff is competent to litigate this action himself at this stage of
`
`the case. Accordingly, the motions for counsel, dkt. [3], is denied. Should the limitations
`
`mentioned in the plaintiff's motion interfere with his ability to comply with deadlines in this case,
`
`he may file motions for extensions of time.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`
`COREY JAMES SMITH
`197539
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Date: 3/9/2021
`
`