Cole v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 265 F. Supp. 3d 892

Plaintiff Reginald S. Cole, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued the manufacturer of Risperdal (later identified as Janssen) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 framed as a product-liability-style claim alleging physical injuries (breast swelling, pain, dizziness, vomiting blood) and demanding large damages.
The district court allowed the case to proceed and Cole amended to name Janssen; Janssen answered and later moved for summary judgment arguing lack of objective evidence of gynecomastia and causation/timing problems in Cole’s medical history.
Cole sought appointment (recruitment) of counsel to obtain medical records, respond to summary judgment, and prepare for trial; he previously attempted to retain private counsel and had limited pro bono assistance to obtain pharmacy records.
The court reviewed Cole’s efforts to obtain counsel (several firms declined) and his litigation experience, including two prior pro se cases in which he litigated motions and responses.
The court analyzed the matter under Seventh Circuit precedent (primarily Pruitt) on recruitment of counsel for indigent civil litigants and considered factors including plaintiff competence, case complexity, need for experts, and what is at stake.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should recruit counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)	Cole needs counsel to obtain records, present evidence at trial, and respond to summary judgment	Janssen argues records show no gynecomastia or causation; summary judgment appropriate	Denied — court concluded Cole competent to litigate and case not so complex or meritorious to require court-recruited counsel
Whether Cole made reasonable efforts to obtain private counsel	Cole showed he contacted firms and obtained limited pro bono help	Janssen noted firms declined representation	Met — court found Cole made reasonable efforts but firms declined on merits/economic grounds
Whether case complexity (medical/expert issues) requires counsel	Cole contended medical issues and records needed counsel/expert help	Janssen argued medical records are straightforward and show no objective injury; timing and causation problems	Court found factual issues not so complex at summary-judgment stage; no appointment required
Whether recruitment would be fruitful or likely to result in counsel taking the case	Cole argued he needs counsel to proceed	Janssen and court noted specialized firms had declined and potential recovery likely insufficient to justify costs	Court concluded courts cannot force lawyers to represent a case firms would not take and denied recruitment

Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir.) (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases)
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (framework for recruiting counsel for pro se civil litigants)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases)
Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319 (7th Cir.) (district courts should assess plaintiff competence and case difficulty; merits beyond colorable claim generally not assessed)
Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692 (7th Cir.) (competence includes ability to conduct discovery and motion practice)
Henderson v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d 559 (7th Cir.) (expert medical evidence and incarceration limitations can require recruitment of counsel)
Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.) (complex medical claims requiring expert testimony may necessitate counsel)
Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.) (trial judge should seek counsel and expert for pro se plaintiff in appropriate medical-expert cases)
James v. Eli, 846 F.3d 951 (7th Cir.) (reinforces obligation to try to secure counsel and expert when case could succeed with representation)
Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885 (7th Cir.) (earlier approach considering merits; later narrowed by Farmer)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (discussing limits on considering merits when deciding appointment of counsel)