JENKINS v. CENTURION HEALTH

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ALAN W. JENKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00591-JPH-TAB ) CENTURION HEALTH, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE WITH RECRUITING COUNSEL

Plaintiff, Alan Jenkins, seeks reconsideration of the denial of his previous motion for assistance recruiting counsel. 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). 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 Watts v. Kidman, 42 F.4th 755, 764 (7th Cir. 2022) (explaining that courts must be careful stewards of the limited resource of volunteer lawyers); 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."). "'When confronted with a request under § 1915(e)(1) for pro bono counsel, the district court is to 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?'" Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007)). These two questions "must guide" the Court's determination whether to attempt to recruit counsel. Id. These questions require an individualized assessment of the plaintiff, the claims, and the stage of litigation. See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655-56. The first question, whether litigants have made a reasonable attempt to

secure private counsel on their own, "is a mandatory, threshold inquiry that must be determined before moving to the second inquiry." Eagan, 987 F.3d at 682. The Court previously found that Plaintiff has made a reasonable effort to recruit counsel on his own. Dkt. 50. He should continue those efforts. "The second inquiry requires consideration of both the factual and legal complexity of the plaintiff's claims and the competence of the plaintiff to litigate those claims himself." Eagan, 987 F.3d at 682 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). "The court's competency evaluation should account for 'the plaintiff's literacy,

communication skills, educational level, and litigation experience,' and, to the extent that such evidence is before the court, information 'bearing on the plaintiff's intellectual capacity and psychological history.'" Watts, 42 F.4th at 760 (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). "Specifically, courts should consider ‘whether the difficulty of the case—factually and legally—exceeds the particular plaintiffs capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself."" Eagan, 987 F.3d at 682 (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). "This assessment of the plaintiffs apparent competence extends beyond the trial stage of proceedings; it must include 'the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial." Id. (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). In support of his motion to reconsider, Plaintiff states that he is being transferred away from the inmate who is assisting him with this case and that reading causes him severe eye strain. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs situation, it finds that he can continue to litigate this case on his own. If his eye strain causes him to experience delays in preparing discovery responses or filings, he may seek extensions of time as are appropriate. Plaintiffs motion for reconsider the denial of his motion for assistance recruiting counsel, dkt. [54], is denied without prejudice. The Court will remain alert to changes in circumstances that may warrant reconsideration of the motion, such as a settlement conference or trial. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/19/2025 <) ams Patrick \4 0 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

ALAN W. JENKINS 870097 PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant – Court Only

All Electronically Registered Counsel