Elaine J. Reynosa (Thatch) v. MSD of Decatur Township

District Court, S.D. Indiana·Decided October 15, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-01673·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ELAINE J. REYNOSA (THATCH), ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-01673-JRS-CSW ) MSD OF DECATUR TOWNSHIP, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Appointed Attorney (Dkt. 32). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion, Dkt. 31, is DENIED. “Litigants in federal civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to court-appointed counsel.” Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933, 938 (7th Cir. 2018). Litigants who are unable to afford counsel “may ask the court to recruit a volunteer attorney to provide pro bono representation.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). However, the Court has discretion in recruiting counsel and must evaluate, as a threshold matter, whether the litigant has “‘made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so.’” Id. (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). As such, this Court requires pro se litigants to provide the information of all attorneys and/or law firms that a litigant has contacted to represent them in the case and their responses to those requests. Plaintiff’s Motion does not provide any information regarding Plaintiff’s attempts to contact attorneys to represent her in this case. (Dkt. 32). Instead, Plaintiff’s Motion states that she is “requesting a court appointed attorney, because of my financial status at this time, and that I am not able to interpret the federal law, thank you.” Id. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide the required information regarding Plaintiff's attempts to contact attorneys to represent her and their responses, the Motion is not properly supported, and the Court will not recruit counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Court Appointed Attorney (Dkt. 32) is DENIED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED. Date: October 15, 2025 EE MES ec sell! Crystal S. Wildeman United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: ELAINE J. REYNOSA (THATCH) 3537 Apple St. Indianapolis, IN 46203 Michelle Lynn Cooper LEWIS & KAPPES PC mcooper@lewis-kappes.com Matthew S. Tarkington LEWIS & KAPPES PC mtarkington@lewis-kappes.com

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Elaine J. Reynosa (Thatch) v. MSD of Decatur Township, (S.D. Ind. 2025).

Elaine J. Reynosa (Thatch) v. MSD of Decatur Township (Elaine J. Reynosa (Thatch) v. MSD of Decatur Township) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pruitt v. Mote
503 F.3d 647 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
Fredrick Walker v. Timothy Price
900 F.3d 933 (Seventh Circuit, 2018)