Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

CHARLES P. KOCORAS Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1710 DATE April 11, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Larry Winkfield (#2011-0903119) vs. Superintendent Reyes, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc [6]) is denied. The plaintiff is once again reminded that

he must provide the court with the original of every document filed plus a judge’s copy. 

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

STATEMENT

The plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections, has brought this

pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, two correctional

officers at the jail, violated the his constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his safety. 

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that one officer refused to heed the plaintiff’s report that his life was being

threatened, and that a second officer watched fellow inmates brutally attack the plaintiff without intervening. 

This matter is before the court for ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

The motion is denied. There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases. 

Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (2010); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir.

2006). Nevertheless, the district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request counsel for an

indigent litigant. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007); citing Johnson, 433 F.3d at 1006. When a

pro se litigant submits a request for appointment of counsel, the court must first consider whether the indigent

plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own, or if he has been precluded from doing so. 

Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. Next, the court must evaluate the complexityof the case and whetherthe plaintiff appears

competent to litigate it on his own. Id. at 654-55. Another consideration is whether the assistance of counsel

would provide a substantial benefit to the court or the parties, potentially affecting the (CONTINUED)

mjm

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)

outcome of the case. Id. at 654; Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004); see also N.D. Ill. L.R. 83.36(c)

(listing the factors to be taken into account in determining whether to appoint counsel). 

After considering the above factors, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in

this case. First, the plaintiff has failed to show either that he has made reasonable efforts to retain private counsel

or that he has been effectively precluded from making such efforts. In any event, although the complaint sets forth

cognizable claims, the plaintiff has alleged no physical or mental disabilitythat might preclude him from adequately

investigating the facts giving rise to his complaint. Neither the legal issues raised in the complaint nor the evidence

that might support the plaintiff’s claims are so complex or intricate that an attorney is necessary. The plaintiff,

whose submissions to date have been coherent and articulate, appears more than capable of presenting his case. 

It should additionally be noted that the court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in the handling of their lawsuits. 

Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied at this time. Should the case proceed to a

point that assistance of counsel is appropriate, the court may revisit this request. 

As a final concern, the plaintiff is reminded of basic filing requirements: he must (1) provide the court with

the original of every document filed plus a judge’s copy, and (2) include a certificate of service with every court

filing showing that a copy was mailed to opposing counsel. 

Page 2 of 2