Smith v. Ervin

C.D. Illinois

Smith v. Ervin

DecidedMay 6, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02131

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Smith v. Ervin, (C.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Urbana Division

DAVID SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-2131

ALKELA ERVIN,

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (#3).

Unlike in criminal cases, parties in civil cases have no right to a lawyer. See Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may recruit a lawyer for a party who cannot afford one. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007).

In determining whether to recruit an attorney, the court asks two questions: “(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 in the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Id. at 654.

To answer the second question, the court looks to see “whether the difficulty of the case—factually and legally—exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.” Id. at 655. This requires the Court to conduct a particularized inquiry into Plaintiff’s competence and the difficulty of the case. McCaa v. Hamilton, 959 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff has personal knowledge of these facts, and he has demonstrated an ability to adequately communicate in writing with the Court and in other correspondence. Considering all available evidence of Plaintiff’s abilities, this case does not exceed Plaintiff’s capacity to present it. The case does not involve overly complex questions of law or fact. Plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting the case, given he is a high school graduate, with some college education.

The Court also notes that it grants pro se plaintiffs wide latitude in presenting their cases. Moore v. Godinez, 2010 WL 3718599 (N.D. Ill. Sept 10, 2010).

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (# 3) is DENIED.

ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2025. s/ERIC I. LONG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Urbana Division

DAVID SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-2131

ALKELA ERVIN,

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (#3).

Unlike in criminal cases, parties in civil cases have no right to a lawyer. See Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may recruit a lawyer for a party who cannot afford one. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007).

In determining whether to recruit an attorney, the court asks two questions: “(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 in the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Id. at 654.

To answer the second question, the court looks to see “whether the difficulty of the case—factually and legally—exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.” Id. at 655. This requires the Court to conduct a particularized inquiry into Plaintiff’s competence and the difficulty of the case. McCaa v. Hamilton, 959 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff has personal knowledge of these facts, and he has demonstrated an ability to adequately communicate in writing with the Court and in other correspondence. Considering all available evidence of Plaintiff’s abilities, this case does not exceed Plaintiff’s capacity to present it. The case does not involve overly complex questions of law or fact. Plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting the case, given he is a high school graduate, with some college education.

The Court also notes that it grants pro se plaintiffs wide latitude in presenting their cases. Moore v. Godinez, 2010 WL 3718599 (N.D. Ill. Sept 10, 2010).

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (# 3) is DENIED.

ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2025. s/ERIC I. LONG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Ervin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-ervin-ilcd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack