GRIFFIN v. EVANS

District Court, S.D. Indiana·Decided March 27, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-00882·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

VIRGIL GRIFFIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:19-cv-00882-JPH-MPB ) R. CARTER, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Appoint Counsel

The plaintiff has moved for the appointment of counsel. Dkt. 181. 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)). These questions require an individualized assessment of the plaintiff, the claims, and the stage of litigation. To facilitate the process of evaluating requests for counsel, the Court has prepared a form motion to be used by indigent litigants who seek the appointment of counsel. The form requests the information necessary for the Court to make a determination on the merits of the motion and requires the litigant to acknowledge important conditions of the appointment of counsel. The plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel, dkt. [181], is denied without prejudice because it provides neither sufficient information to make a determination on the merits nor an acknowledgement of the conditions of the appointment of counsel. The plaintiff may renew his motion for the appointment of counsel by filling out the form motion for assistance with recruiting counsel that the Court will send to him along with his copy of this Order. The clerk is directed to include a blank form Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel will the plaintiff's copy of this Order. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/27/2020

James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: VIRGIL GRIFFIN 998996 PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 4490 West Reformatory Road PENDLETON, IN 46064 Douglass R. Bitner KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C. dbitner@kkclegal.com Bryan Findley INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL bryan.findley @ atg.in.gov Lyubov Gore INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL lyubov.gore @ atg.in.gov

Rachel D. Johnson KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C. rjohnson@kkclegal.com

Matthew Stephen Koressel INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL matthew.koressel@atg.in.gov

Daniel F. Rothenberg INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL daniel.rothenberg@atg.in.gov

Sarah Jean Shores INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL sarah.shores@atg.in.gov

Jordan Michael Stover INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL jordan.stover@atg.in.gov

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

GRIFFIN v. EVANS, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

GRIFFIN v. EVANS (GRIFFIN v. EVANS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pruitt v. Mote
503 F.3d 647 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
Jeffrey Olson v. Donald Morgan
750 F.3d 708 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)
Fredrick Walker v. Timothy Price
900 F.3d 933 (Seventh Circuit, 2018)