Murphy v. Siddiqui

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: August 26, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00324
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

STEVEN MURPHY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-00324-SPM v.

DR. SIDDIQUI, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge: Before the Court is a second motion for counsel filed by Plaintiff Steven Murphy. (Doc. 38). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” When faced with a motion for recruitment of counsel the Court applies a two part test: “(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?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). In his first motion for counsel, Murphy claimed that in an attempt to recruit counsel on his own he wrote several attorneys and was not provided any responses. (Doc. 3). In support of his motion, Murphy provided a single declination letter from Equip for Equality. The Court found that this evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that Murphy had made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel prior to seeking assistance from the Court. (Doc. 8). He was informed that if he chose to move for recruitment of counsel at a later date, he must include in the motion the names and address of at least three attorneys he has contacted, and if available, attach the letter from the attorneys who declined representation. Murphy has not followed these instructions. In the current motion, Murphy again informs the Court that he has written several attorneys and has been unsuccessful. (Doc. 38). He does not provide the names, addresses, or phone numbers for these attorneys or any declination letters.

Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate that he made a reasonable attempt to recruit counsel on his own, and the motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2022

s/Stephen P. McGlynn STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN United States District Judge