Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5127 DATE August 31, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Mohamed Alghazali (2011-1229126) vs. Grand and Central Police Station

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s third amended compliant [11] is accepted. The clerk shall issue a summons for service on

Defendant McCarthy and send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting

Documents along with a copy of this order. McCarthy remains as a defendant solely so that Plaintiff can

identify the unknown defendant. The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendant. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [9] is denied without prejudice.

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

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Mohamed Alghazali, a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, brings this pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis;

however, his complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim against a suable

defendant. Plaintiff’s original complaint appeared to raise a claim of excessive force against an unknown

police officer and lack of medical care at Cook County Jail for the resulting broken hand. Plaintiff submitted

an amended complaint; however, on July 30, 2012, the amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state

a claim against the sole named Defendant. Plaintiff submitted a second amended complaint and on August

17, 2012, that complaint was dismissed without prejudice because it raised a new, unrelated claim. Plaintiff

has now submitted a third amended complaint. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt review of the third amended

complaint.

 Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on December 27, 2011, at which time a Chicago Police Officer

used excessive force on Plaintiff, breaking his hand. Plaintiff does not know the name of the police officer

but names Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy. 

 Police Chief McCarthy remains as a defendant solely so that Plaintiff may discover the identity of

the unknown police officer that allegedly used excessive force on Plaintiff. Once an attorney has entered an

appearance on McCarthy’s behalf, Plaintiff may send defense counsel interrogatories (that is, a list of

questions) eliciting information regarding the identity of the presently unnamed officer who allegedly

violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. After Plaintiff learns his/her identity, he

may submit a proposed amended complaint that names him/her under their actual names. Summons will then

issue for service on this defendant, and McCarthy will be dismissed as a defendant. Plaintiff is advised that

there is a two year statute of limitations for his claims. Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff must submit a proposed fourth amended complaint naming this defendant within the

statute of limitations period if he wishes to proceed against him/her. Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 696

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

(7th Cir. 2008); Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540 F.3d 633, 639 (7th Cir. 2008); Worthington v. Wilson, 8 F.3d

1253, 1257 (7th Cir. 1993). 

The clerk shall issue a summons for service on Defendant McCarthy and send Plaintiff a Magistrate

Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order. The United

States Marshals Service is appointed to serve McCarthy. Any service forms necessary for Plaintiff to

complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve the Defendant with process. The U.S. Marshal

is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve the Defendant. The U.S. Marshals Service is requested to

mail the complaint and appropriate papers for waiver of service by first-class mail to the named Defendant

pursuant to Rule 4(d)(1)(G).

Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of

the Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the Court with the original plus a complete Judge’s copy,

including any exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, plaintiff must send an exact copy of any court

filing to defendant [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of

defendant]. Every document filed with the Court must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact

copies were mailed and the date of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the Judge or that otherwise

fails to comply with these instructions may be disregarded by the Court or returned to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. “There is no constitutional

or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases,” but this Court does have “discretion under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1) to request counsel for an indigent litigant.” Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir.

2010) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d

1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006); Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 323 (7th Cir. 1993)). In determining whether to

request counsel to represent plaintiff, this Court considers whether: (1) plaintiff “has made reasonable

attempts to secure counsel on his own;” and, if so, (2) “the complexity of the case and whether the plaintiff

appears competent to litigate it on his own.” Romanelli, 615 F.3d at 851-52 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654-

55). This Court has discretion in determining whether to recruit counsel for a pro se plaintiff. Jackson v.

Kotter, 541 F.3d at 700 (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). 

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

in this case at this time. Plaintiff has articulated colorable claims and has adequately investigated the facts

giving rise to his amended complaint. Neither the legal issues raised in the amended complaint nor the

evidence that might support Plaintiff’s claims are so complex or intricate that a trained attorney is necessary. 

As Plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting his case, the Court declines to appoint counsel

for Plaintiff at this time. It should additionally be noted that the Court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in

the handling of their lawsuits. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without

prejudice. Should the case proceed to a point that assistance of counsel is appropriate, the Court may revisit

this request. 

Page 2 of 2