Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5098 DATE 12/7/2012

CASE

TITLE

Bradley vs. Ultra Foods

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [25] is granted. The Court appoints David L. Witcoff, Jones Day, 77

West Wacker Drive Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601-1692, (312)782-3939 Email: dlwitcoff@jonesday.com.

Status hearing set for 1/29/2013 at 9:30AM. 

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

STATEMENT

This is a Title VII employment discrimination and sexual harassment case. The court granted Plaintiff

Keith Bradley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [8]. On 11/08/2012, Ultra Foods answered the second

amended complaint and asserted numerous affirmative defenses [23]. On 12/04/2012, Bradley renewed his

motion to appoint counsel [25].

There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615

F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). However, the

court has discretion to appoint counsel in Title VII cases under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B). The special

provision for the appointment of counsel in Title VII cases indicates Congress’ particular “concern for

unrepresented Title VII litigants.” Darden v. Ill. Bell Tel., 797 F.2d 497, 501 n.3 (7th Cir. 1986).

In ruling on a pro se litigant’s motion to appoint counsel, the court must consider as a threshold matter

whether the indigent plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his or her own, or if he or she

has been precluded from doing so. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Sherrill v.

Potter, 329 F. App’x 672, 675 (7th Cir. 2009) (applying the Pruitt factors in a Title VII case). Next, the court

must evaluate the difficulty of the case – both factually and legally – to see whether the plaintiff appears

competent to litigate it on his or her own. Id. at 655. Another consideration is whether the assistance of counsel

would provide a substantial benefit to the court or the parties. Id. at 654; Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir.

2004). This requires the court to make a preliminary evaluation of the merits of a plaintiff’s claim. Jones v. WFYR

Radio/RKO Gen., 626 F.2d 576, 577 (7th Cir. 1980), overruled on other grounds, Randle v. Victor Welding

Supply Co., 664 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir. 1981).

In this case, Bradley has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel, by contacting five different

attorneys, but has not been able to retain one. The case does not appear to be particularly complicated legally,

but from Bradley’s complaint it appears that proving his claim will require obtaining evidence from a substantial

12C5098 Bradley vs. Ultra Foods Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

number of witnesses. Bradley has done a successful job explaining his claim in narrative, and amending his

complaint in light of Ultra Food’s motion for a more definite statement, but counsel would assist him in

articulating his claims in a way Ultra Foods can more thoroughly answer. (See Answer ¶ 8-11, ECF No. 23,

“Defendant is unable to answer the allegations . . . due to [each paragraph’s] narrative form. To the extent it can

answer, Defendant denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.”) At this early stage, it appears

Bradley has made out a colorable claim that his termination was the result of sexual harassment and sex

discrimination.

12C5098 Bradley vs. Ultra Foods Page 2 of 2