UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

GREGORY PAUL BADY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-190

)

D. BENNETT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a request by pro se Plaintiff Gregory Paul Bady in this 42 U.S.C. §

1983 case advancing an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, asking that this

Court request an attorney to represent him. (Docket # 18.) Because Bady is competent to litigate

this case himself, the motion will be DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

“There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan,

750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007)). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may request that an attorney represent an

indigent litigant; the decision whether to recruit pro bono counsel is left to the discretion of the

district court. Olson, 750 F.3d at 711; Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 658. 

“In deciding whether to request counsel, district courts must ask two questions: ‘(1) [H]as

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 himself?’” Olson, 750 F.3d at 711 (alteration in original) (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at
654). The second portion of this inquiry, stated another way, is “whether the difficulty of the

case–factually and legally–exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently

present it to the judge and jury himself.” Olson, 750 F.3d at 712 (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at

655). In conducting this inquiry, the district court must ascertain “whether the plaintiff appears

competent to litigate his own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks

that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and

other court filings, and trial.” Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655 (emphasis omitted). 

Normally, determining a plaintiff’s competence will be assessed by considering “the

plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, educational level, and litigation experience.” Id. And if

the record reveals the plaintiff’s intellectual capacity and psychological history, these too would

be relevant. Id. Overall, the decision to recruit counsel is a “practical one, made in light of

whatever relevant evidence is available on the question.” Id.

ANALYSIS

 To begin, although Bady states that he has contacted three attorneys “in a failed effort to

get them to represent him” (Docket # 18), he does not provide any specifics about these attempts

that would allow the Court to assess the reasonableness of his efforts.1 Cnty. of McLean, 953

F.2d at 1073 (“If . . . the indigent has made no reasonable attempts to secure counsel (unless

circumstances prevented him from doing so), the court should deny any § 1915(d) motions

outright.”); see also Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 700 (7th Cir. 2008); Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d

649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004).

1 Of course, this is an indication that his claims may indeed have little merit and that appointing counsel will

not make a difference in the ultimate outcome. See Jackson v. Cnty. of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992)

(considering plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to retain counsel when denying his motion to appoint counsel). 

2
But even if he had satisfied this threshold requirement, it is evident that Bady is

competent to represent himself in this matter, at least at this stage of the proceedings. This is a

fairly straightforward § 1983 action: Bady alleges that the Defendants, both police officers for the

City of Marion, Indiana, deprived him of equal protection by failing to promptly investigate and

arrest a third party who purportedly battered him in June 2013. He alleges that the Defendants

discriminated against him because of his prior encounters with the Marion Police Department.

(Docket # 1, 15); see Lovelace v. Dall, 820 F.2d 223, 226-27 (7th Cir. 1987) (denying a motion

to appoint counsel where pro se plaintiff could adequately handle the discovery process and trial

in a relatively simple § 1983 case). 

Although Bady asserts that “these proceedings have gone beyond [his] legal knowledge

and comprehension,” the Court is not persuaded. Bady has already articulated his claims in this

suit (Docket # 1); participated in a Rule 26(f) planning meeting and a Rule 16 Preliminary

Pretrial Conference (Docket # 14, 15); propounded discovery to Defendants (Docket # 16), and

sought relief through various motions, including a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the

instant motion to appoint counsel (Docket # 2, 18). 

It is clear from Bady’s written submissions and court appearances that he is literate and

has adequate communication skills, at least for purposes of representing himself. Cf. Dewitt v.

Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2014) (reversing a district court’s denial of request for

counsel pertaining to “a blind and indigent prisoner with a tenth-grade education and no legal

experience” in a case involving complicated medical matters); Henderson v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d

559, 567 (7th Cir. 2014) (reversing a district court’s denial of request for counsel where the

record reflected plaintiff’s low IQ, functional illiteracy, and poor education). Indeed, Bady’s

3
submissions to the district court are better than the average pro se litigant’s. See Olson, 750 F.3d

at 712. Moreover, the task of any discovery is apt to be quite limited and certainly not

insurmountable. And Bady is not incarcerated, and thus, is free to perform his own research. 

Considering the foregoing, Bady appears competent to adequately handle the litigation of

this § 1983 equal protection case at this stage of the proceedings. In the event his claims survive

the anticipated dispositive motion, the Court will reconsider his request for counsel. See

Mungiovi v. Chicago Housing Auth., No. 94 C 6663, 1994 WL 735413, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19,

1994) (“The court’s general practice is to consider appointment of counsel if and when it appears

that the action has sufficient merit to require complex discovery or an evidentiary hearing.”). 

Consequently, Bady’s motion asking that the Court request counsel for him will be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket #

18) is DENIED. Plaintiff is, of course, free to attempt to secure counsel on his own.

 Enter for this 24th day of December 2014.

S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

4