SNOW v. BROWN

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: December 16, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00573
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

THOMAS SNOW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:22-cv-00573-JPH-MJD ) SARA BEDWELL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE WITH RECRUITING COUNSEL

Plaintiff Thomas Snow has filed a 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. Plaintiff has attempted to contact multiple attorneys with requests for representation without success. Dkt. 119 at 2. The Court finds that he has made a reasonable effort to recruit counsel on his own before seeking the Court's assistance. He should continue his efforts to find counsel. "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

plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's 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). The Court finds that Plaintiff is competent to litigate on his own at this time. He states that he is learning disabled and has difficulty spelling, but he

has a high school certificate of completion. Dkt. 119 at 2. Further, he has been able to submit coherent filings in this case. Plaintiff further states that he experiences bipolar disorder but does not explain how this condition impacts his ability to litigate this case. Id. Mental illness, while relevant to the Court's inquiry, does not create a legal entitlement to the appointment of counsel. Perry v. Sims, 990 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir. 2021). Finally, Plaintiff states that he requests counsel to assist him in obtaining evidence and conducting depositions. Dkt. 119 at 3. He asserts that the defendants have refused to

provide discovery and that he has uncovered evidence of wrongdoing by the defendants. Id. Plaintiff, however, has demonstrated his ability to conduct discovery in this case, and has filed motions to compel and motions for sanctions based on his contentions. See dkts. 108, 118. He has been able to litigate these motions on his own, without requiring the assistance of counsel. Plaintiffs motion for assistance recruiting counsel, dkt. [119], 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: 12/16/2024 Jamu Patnaik Hanlore James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Co Southern District of Indiana Distribution: THOMAS SNOW 185044 WABASH VALLEY - CF Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Electronic Service Participant — Court Only All Electronically Registered Counsel