WILLIAMS v. HOLCOMB

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedMay 7, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-00563
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
WILLIAMS v. HOLCOMB, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JOSHUA E. WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-00563-JPH-DML ) ERIC HOLCOMB, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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. To facilitate the process of evaluating requests for counsel, the Court has prepared a form motion to be used by indigent litigants seeking the appointment of counsel. 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. The plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, dkt. [10], is denied without prejudice because it provides neither sufficient information to make a determination on the merits nor an acknowledgement of the conditions of the appointment of counsel. 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 clerk is directed to send the plaintiff a motion for assistance recruiting counsel form with his copy of this Order. SO ORDERED. Date: 5/7/2020 Slam ruck banter James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JOSHUA E. WILLIAMS 323278 St. Joseph Co. Jail 401 W. Sample St. South Bend, IN 46601

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
WILLIAMS v. HOLCOMB, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-holcomb-insd-2020.