Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1049 DATE 2/29/2012

CASE

TITLE

Penney Washington vs. Love N Learn Daycare

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [3] is denied. The court also

notes that Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in this case. Plaintiff is given until March 14, 2012, to pay the

filing fee in this case. Plaintiff is warned that if she fails to pay the filing fee by March 14, 2012, the instant

action will be dismissed. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Penney Washington’s (Washington) motion for

appointment of counsel. An indigent civil litigant does not have a right to appointed counsel. Forbes v.

Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 264 (7th Cir. 1997). However, a court, in its discretion, can appoint counsel for

indigents in a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In determining whether to appoint counsel for

a civil litigant, a court must consider the following factors: “(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?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654, 661

(7th Cir. 2007)(stating that there is no presumption in favor of granting or denying a motion for appointment

of counsel and that each motion is to be considered individually). In considering the competency factor, the

court must determine “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 (stating

that “[t]he question is not whether a lawyer would present the case more effectively than the pro se plaintiff;

‘if that were the test, district judges would be required to request counsel for every indigent

litigant’”)(quoting Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006)). In assessing competency, the

12C1049 Penney Washington vs. Love N Learn Daycare Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-01049 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/29/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:15
STATEMENT

court must consider “whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his own claims, given their degree of

difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and

responding to motions and other court filings, and trial.” Id. (emphasis omitted). In ruling on a motion for

appointment of counsel, the court should take into consideration “the plaintiff’s literacy, communication

skills, educational level, and litigation experience” and evaluate “evidence in the record bearing on the

plaintiff’s intellectual capacity and psychological history,” including “any information submitted in support

of the request for counsel, as well as the pleadings, communications from, and any contact with the plaintiff.” 

Id. (stating that “in some cases-perhaps many cases-the record may be sparse” and that “[t]he inquiry into the

plaintiff’s capacity to handle his own case is a practical one, made in light of whatever relevant evidence is

available on the question”).

In the instant action, Washington has not shown that this case is overly complex or difficult, factually

or legally. The court has considered the entire record in this case at this juncture, as it reflects on

Washington’s ability to coherently present her case as a layperson and her ability to perform the tasks that

normally attend litigation. The court concludes that, based upon the record, Washington is competent to

present her case at this juncture without the assistance of appointed counsel. Therefore, the court finds that

an appointment of counsel is not warranted at this juncture, and the motion for appointment of counsel is

denied. 

The court also notes that Washington has not paid the filing fee in this case. Washington is given until

March 14, 2012, to pay the filing fee in this case. Washington is warned that if she fails to pay the filing fee

by March 14, 2012, the instant action will be dismissed.

12C1049 Penney Washington vs. Love N Learn Daycare Page 2 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-01049 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/29/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:16