Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Charles P. Kocoras Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C7116 DATE 10/10/2002
CASE Hodges vs. Chicago Transit Authority et al
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) i) Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on. set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) QO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Qa This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1. CUFRCP41(a)(1) CI FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) =o [Other docket entry] ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: Plaintiff's application (Doc 3-1) to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff's motion (Doc 4-1) for appointment of counsel is denied.
(1) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. ”
No notices required, och 4 41006
Notices maited by judge's staff. st
Notified counsel by telephone. date docke
a | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 430 form. IMEC “on A it
Copy to judfemagistate judge.
L he ' ;
courtroom do mailed notice
SCT deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office

uailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
SUZANNE M. HODGES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) 02 C 7116
)
CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, BRUCE )
TALAGA, RAY RYBACK, PATRICK RYAN, )
PATRICK DURKIN, and GRACIEIA )
MONTALVO, )
)  DOCKETED
Defendants. ) OCT 4 4 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, Chief District Judge:

Suzanne Hodges filed this action against the Chicago Transit Authority and several
individuals alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national
origin in violation of Title VII and employment discrimination in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Before the court are Ms. Hodge’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis and motion for appointed counsel.

Ms. Hodges currently has no income and her assets, if any, do not exceed $1000.
Moreover, her liquid assets, if any, do not exceed $200. We grant her leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In addressing her motion for appointed counsel, we first note that a civil litigant,

even though indigent, has no right to appointed counsel. See Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d


262, 264 (7th Cir. 1997). A court, however, in its broad discretion can request that an
attorney handle the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Id. The Seventh Circuit has set
forth a non-exclusive list of five factors to be considered in determining whether or not to
appoint counsel. They are: “(1) the merits of the indigent's claim for relief; (2) the ability
of the indigent plaintiff to investigate crucial facts unaided by counsel; (3) whether the
nature of the evidence indicates that the truth will more likely be exposed where both sides
are represented by counsel; (4) the capability of the indigent to present the case; and (5) the
complexity of the legal issues raised by the complaint.” Jackson v. County of McLean, 953
F.2d 1070, 1072 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th Cir.
1981)). We will only evaluate a movant’s situation, however, if the movant has made
reasonable efforts to retain counsel and was unsuccessful or if the movant was effectively
precluded from making such efforts. Jackson, 953 F.2d at 1073. In her Motion for
Appointment of Counsel, Ms. Hodges leaves completely blank paragraph 2, which
explicitly provides space for her to document any efforts to retain counsel. Additionally,
the merits of her claim appear problematic at this early stage. Accordingly, we deny her

motion for appointment of counsel.

Charles P. Kocoras
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Dated: __ “8140 2002