Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Harry D. Leinenweber Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1823 DATE 4/12/2012

CASE

TITLE

Battles vs. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff is directed to serve the Defendant, and has 30 days from the date of entry of this order to issue

summons or the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Based on Plaintiff’s representation that he earns $20,400 annually, his in forma pauperis application [Dkt No.

4] is GRANTED. This amount is below the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines for a

family of four ($23,050). 

Part of the determination in an in forma pauperis ruling is first determining whether the complaint has any

possible merit or is frivolous on its face. Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Div., Cnty. Ct., Milwaukee Cnty., State

of Wis., 510 F.2d 130, 134 (7 Cir. 1975). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges he was denied promotion because of th

his race, color and sex, and that his supervisor remarked that he preferred to hire Hispanics over AfricanAmerican employees. He has also alleged retaliation. At this stage, this is sufficient to move it past the

frivolousness hurdle.

Plaintiff has also applied for appointment of counsel. [Dkt. Nos. 5]

A request for appointment for counsel is entirely discretionary, but must always be evaluated on an individual

basis grounded in the Court’s judgment rather than a standard response or inclination. Pruitt v. Mote, 503

F.3d 647, 654-655 (7 Cir. 2007). While there is no mandated formula for considering requests for counsel, th

three factors are typically taken into consideration: (1) Whether the indigent party has made “reasonable

efforts to retain counsel,” (2) the difficulty of the case weighted against to the indigent party’s competency to

litigate the case and (3) if a plaintiff does not appear competent, whether the presence of counsel would

conceivably make a difference to the outcome of the case. Id. In pro se cases, there may be few facts on

which to base competency, but the court is to evaluate it in light of whatever relevant evidence is available.

Id. at 655. This evaluation may be revisited at the discretion of the court as the case progresses, or new

information arrives to inform the Court. Id. at 658.

12C1823 Battles vs. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

Here, Plaintiff has represented he contacted four organizations seeking counsel, which is a modest number of

entities. As to the difficulty of the case, the record is skeletal at this point, but but the lawsuit states claims

under 42 U.S.C. § 1981and under Title VII. While these cases can be complex, at this stage, the proceedings

are not overly complicated. Additionally, Plaintiff has represented he is a high school graduate, which

indicates he is minimally competent to pursue his own litigation, at least at this stage. Therefore, the motion

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. If the posture of the case changes substantially,

plaintiff may file a motion for reconsideration.

12C1823 Battles vs. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC Page 2 of 2