Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Kendall Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3785 DATE 6/26/2012

CASE

TITLE

Henson vs. Canon

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Henson’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and her Motion for Appointment of Counsel are denied.

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

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Lisa Henson (“Henson”) moves to proceed in forma pauperis without the full prepayment of

filing fees, and also moves for appointment of counsel, in her suit against her former employer Canon Business

Solutions pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. For the reasons stated

below, Henson’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and her Motion for Appointment of Counsel are denied.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize Henson to proceed in forma pauperis if she is

unable to pay the mandated court fees. Henson need not be penniless to proceed in forma pauperis under §

1915(a)(1). See Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). Instead, she is eligible to proceed if payment

of the filing fee will prevent her from providing for life’s necessities. See Id. According to Henson’s financial

affidavit, she is currently employed at Henson’s Healthcare Placement, Inc., yet reports $0 in monthly salary or

wages from this employer. Henson was formerly employed at T-Mobile USA from August 2, 2010 until October

11, 2011, earning $5,000 per month. She currently receives $1,100 per month in unemployment assistance and

has no spouse or dependents. She owns one automobile valued at $12,000, has $3,000 in savings and $2,500 in

stocks. Henson owns a condominium valued at $120,000, but reports negative equity in the property and her

monthly mortgage payments are $1,500. Based on these facts, Henson’s financial affidavit has set forth that she

is able to both pay the mandated court fees and still provide for life’s necessities.1

Henson asserts that she is an African-American female, and alleges that she filed a discrimination charge

against defendant Canon Business Solutions with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

in April 2009. This claim was subsequently dropped. Henson alleges that Canon retaliated against her in

response to her EEOC discrimination charge: her pay was reduced by 50%, her job title was changed, and her

top accounts were transferred to white male colleagues. Henson filed a second complaint with the EEOC on

August 17, 2009. After receiving a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on February 28, 2012, Henson timely

12C3785 Henson vs. Canon Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

1. The Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis specifically requests rental income received in the past twelve

months. Henson provided that she received rental income of $1,500 per month until April 2011, which is more than

thirteen months ago. However, the Court takes judicial notice that Henson simultaneously filed a retaliation claim

against a different defendant in the Northern District of Illinois. See Henson v. T-Mobile USA, 12-C-03845 (N.D. Ill.

May 17, 2012). In her motion to proceed in forma pauperis against that defendant, Henson reports that her rental

income ceased in April 2012. This discrepancy is not dispositive because the Court denies her motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, but Henson is advised that her applications constitute sworn affidavits before the Court.

filed suit in this Court on May 16, 2012. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5e; see also Tyson v. Gannett Co., 538 F.3d 781,

783 (7th Cir. 2008). Consequently, her claims are properly before this Court, but she must pay the filing fee to

proceed. 

Henson also moves for the appointment of counsel. Civil litigants in federal court do not have a statutory

or constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656 (7th Cir. 2007). “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

[her]self?” Id. at 654-655. Henson states that she contacted four law firms but was unable to secure

representation. The firms were either unable to take on new clients or requested a minimum $5,000 retainer fee

which she could not afford. Although Henson made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel, she appears competent

to litigate this case without representation. Henson holds a college degree and, based on her filings with the

Court and the EEOC, is able to communicate clearly and effectively. The relevant facts of this case are familiar

to her, and the legal issues of the case are not particularly complex. Consequently, Henson’s motion for

appointment of counsel is denied.

12C3785 Henson vs. Canon Page 2 of 2