Romine v. Gaunt et al, No. 1:2008cv00008 - Document 32 (N.D. Ind. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 28 Request for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 9/26/08. (cer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION NATHAN W. ROMINE, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF DEPUTY GAUNT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 1:08-cv-008 OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a letter (Docket # 28) written by pro se Plaintiff Nathan Romine asking, in the words of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that this Court request an attorney to represent him in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. The Court took the request under advisement and sent a Questionnaire to Romine to elicit more information. (Docket # 29.) He submitted the Questionnaire answers (unsigned) on September 25, 2008. (Docket # 31.) Because Romine s case is not a difficult one and since he is competent to litigate it, his request for appointment of counsel will be DENIED. LEGAL STANDARD No constitutional or statutory right to counsel exists in a civil case. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656-57 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)); Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1997); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). 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. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 649; Luttrell, 129 F.3d at 936; Zarnes, 64 F.3d at 288. This decision by the district court comes down to a two-fold inquiry that must address both the difficulty of the plaintiff s claims and the plaintiff s competence to litigate those claims himself. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655. The question 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. Id. Stated another way, 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. Id. (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 Applying the foregoing two-fold inquiry to the instant circumstances, it shows that Romine is competent to represent himself in this case. To explain, this suit is a relatively straightforward § 1983 action, as Romine claims that his fourth amendment rights were violated in connection with the delivery of his mail, some of which was marked as attorney-client correspondence, while he was an inmate at Adams County Law Enforcement Center. (Docket # 1.) Thus, the first factor the difficulty of his claims cuts against Romine s request for counsel. See generally 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 2 in a relatively simple § 1983 case). Second, Romine has already adequately articulated his claims in this case and sought relief through various motions. (See, e.g., Docket # 1-3, 5, 7-11, 16, 27-28, 30-31.) On that score, on July 17, 2008, he appeared telephonically at the preliminary pretrial conference with this Court and demonstrated good communication skills. (Docket # 27.) Moreover, the facts of this case are within his particular knowledge; therefore, the task of discovery is apt to be quite limited and certainly not insurmountable. As a result, the second factor of the two-fold inquiry the plaintiff s competence to litigate the claims himself - also fails to support Romine s request for counsel. Furthermore, it is unclear whether Romine even still wants counsel because at the same time he submitted his Questionnaire, he also filed a letter stating that he was representing himself. (See Docket # 30.) Considering the foregoing, Romine appears quite competent to adequately handle the litigation of this relatively simple § 1983 case. Consequently, his request that the Court recruit counsel for him will be denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff s request for appointment of counsel (Docket # 28) is DENIED. Plaintiff is, of course, free to attempt to secure counsel on his own. Enter for this 26th day of September, 2008. /S/ Roger B. Cosbey Roger B. Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
