Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ALAN W. JENKINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00591-JPH-TAB )
CENTURION HEALTH, et al., )
)
Defendants. ) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE RENEWED MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE WITH RECRUITING COUNSEL
Plaintiff, Alan Jenkins, has filed a motion for assistance recruiting counsel. Dkt. 73. 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.").
*2 "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. 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." , 987 F.3d at 682 (citing , 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 *3 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.'" , 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 , 503 F.3d at 655).
Plaintiff contends that the case is too complex for him to pursue it. He points out some difficulties he experienced during his deposition. But he has shown his understanding of his claims and the facts on which they are based. His filings have been coherent and he has demonstrated his understanding of the court's processes. This is enough, at this time, to show that he is capable of litigating on his own. Plaintiff's motion for assistance recruiting counsel, dkt. [73], is denied
Date: 7/2/2025 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.
Distribution:
ALAN W. JENKINS
870097
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
All Electronically Registered Counsel