Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

RONALD A. GUZMÁN Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 2494 DATE September 13, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Charles Perkins (#2011-1128056) vs. Cook County Municipality, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [#13] is denied. The plaintiff is once again reminded that he

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

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

STATEMENT

The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee 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, jail

officials, violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by denying him due process in jail disciplinary proceedings

and by retaliating against him. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that his entire tier was placed on lockdown

as punishment for two inmates’ lawsuits, and that he and his fellow detainees were summarily disciplined for no

valid reason. 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 conversely, if he has been precluded from

doing so. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. Next, the court must evaluate the complexity of the case and whether the

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 Local Rule 83.36(c) (N.D.

Ill.) (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. Although the complaint sets forth cognizable claims, the plaintiff has alleged no physical or mental disability

that 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 a

trained attorney is necessary. The plaintiff has had the wherewithal to bring five lawsuits already this year in this

district alone; furthermore, his submissions to date have been coherent and articulate. The plaintiff appears more

than capable of presenting his case, notwithstanding his failure to complete high school. 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. 

The plaintiff is once again reminded that he must provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy of

every document filed. 

Page 2 of 2