Hill v. United States

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOHN F. HILL ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-1396-SMY ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DR. QI LIU, and DR. KEVIN RAINEY, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge: On July 31, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiff John F. Hill’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, recruitment of counsel, and service of process at the Government’s expense (Doc. 8). Hill paid the filing fee on August 22, 2025. Now pending before the Court is his Motion for Reconsideration of Motions for Recruitment of Counsel and Service of Process at Government’s Expense (Doc. 9). Hill moves for reconsideration, asserting he has had extreme difficulty finding a lawyer to discuss his case. Because the Court has not found Hill to be indigent, it does not have the discretion to recruit counsel for him. See Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)) (“In a civil case, the court has discretion to recruit counsel to represent a litigant who is unable to afford one.”). Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Hill’s motion for reconsideration regarding service of process at the Government expense is also DENIED. Hill is not proceeding in forma pauperis nor has he provided a sufficient reason why he cannot afford or otherwise effect service upon Defendants through the procedures provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 8, 2025

STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge