KEEYLEN v. TALBOT

District Court, S.D. Indiana·Decided November 24, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-02395·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

VICTOR KEEYLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:18-cv-02395-JPH-DLP ) PAUL TALBOT, ) CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, ) WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, ) JERRY GILLEY, ) CAROLYN MYERS, ) SAMANTHA ALBERSON, ) Mrs. LAFLOWERS, ) DANIELLE THOMPSON, ) REBECCA DAVIS, ) JONATHAN GRIMES, ) DALE PLUMBER, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

The plaintiff has moved for the appointment of counsel. 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) (en banc)). These questions require an individualized assessment of the plaintiff, the claims, and the stage of litigation. The plaintiff's motion for counsel, dkt [279], is granted to the limited extent that the Court will attempt to recruit counsel to assist the plaintiff for the limited purpose of pursing settlement.

The plaintiff and defendants Paul Talbot, M.D., Wexford of Indiana, LLC, Rebecca Davis, RN, Michelle LaFlower, RN, Danielle R. Thompson, RN, and Johnathon Grimes, LPN, have indicated that a settlement conference would be beneficial in resolving this action at this time. The parties will be notified when counsel is identified. The plaintiff's motion to submit additional interrogatories after counsel is recruited, dkt [293], is denied. The plaintiff is a frequent litigator in this court and has demonstrated that he is competent to draft interrogatories on his own. If this action does not settle, 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 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. In addition, the discovery deadline for additional interrogatories remains December 8, 2020. Dkt. 234. The "Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Void of DKT #293 Regarding Counsel," dkt [299], is denied as duplicative of docket numbers 279 and 293.1

1 The Motion is understood to seek a settlement conference, request counsel for those claims which do not settle, and obtain permission to service additional requests for interrogatories and requests for admission only after his request for counsel is resolved. Those requests were previously considered. The clerk is directed to send the plaintiff a motion for assistance recruiting counsel form with his copy of this Order. SO ORDERED. Date: 11/24/2020 Slam ruck banter James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: VICTOR KEEYLEN 950970 PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant — Court Only All Electronically Registered Counsel

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

KEEYLEN v. TALBOT, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

KEEYLEN v. TALBOT (KEEYLEN v. TALBOT) — 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)