Jackson v. Jones

N.D. Indiana

Jackson v. Jones

DecidedFebruary 7, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00910

StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Jones (Jackson v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Jones, (N.D. Ind. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DARNELL D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-910-DRL-MGG

STEVEN E. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Darnell D. Jackson, a prisoner without a lawyer, sent the court a letter asking that he be appointed a “public defender” to represent him in this case. (ECF 14.) Unlike in a criminal case, “[t]here is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007)). In appropriate circumstances, the court may recruit a volunteer attorney to represent an indigent litigant. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. When confronted with such a request, the court should 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?” Id. Mr. Jackson’s letter is quite brief and does not address what efforts he has made, if any, to try to find an attorney on his own. Nor does he outline any reason to believe he is unable to make some effort to obtain counsel or that he has been effectively precluded from doing so. The court concludes that he has not satisfied the first prong of the inquiry.

Therefore, the motion will be denied, but may be renewed after he contacts at least 10 attorneys to request that they represent him in this case. The court reminds Mr. Jackson that he has not yet been granted leave to proceed on any claim, and that he must pay the initial partial filing fee assessed by the court for the case to proceed further. For these reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel (ECF 14) without prejudice as outlined in this order. SO ORDERED on February 7, 2023 s/ Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DARNELL D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-910-DRL-MGG

STEVEN E. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Darnell D. Jackson, a prisoner without a lawyer, sent the court a letter asking that he be appointed a “public defender” to represent him in this case. (ECF 14.) Unlike in a criminal case, “[t]here is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007)). In appropriate circumstances, the court may recruit a volunteer attorney to represent an indigent litigant. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. When confronted with such a request, the court should 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?” Id. Mr. Jackson’s letter is quite brief and does not address what efforts he has made, if any, to try to find an attorney on his own. Nor does he outline any reason to believe he is unable to make some effort to obtain counsel or that he has been effectively precluded from doing so. The court concludes that he has not satisfied the first prong of the inquiry.

Therefore, the motion will be denied, but may be renewed after he contacts at least 10 attorneys to request that they represent him in this case. The court reminds Mr. Jackson that he has not yet been granted leave to proceed on any claim, and that he must pay the initial partial filing fee assessed by the court for the case to proceed further. For these reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel (ECF 14) without prejudice as outlined in this order. SO ORDERED on February 7, 2023 s/ Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jackson v. Jones, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-jones-innd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack