Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JONES v. WALKER

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


August 5, 2005.

BRIAN JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER WALKER, et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Several motions are pending in this action, and first is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3).

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 (4th Cir. 1975); Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971). When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court must first determine if a pro se litigant has made reasonable efforts to secure counsel before resorting to the courts. Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1072 (7th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff indicates that he has made just one attempt to retain counsel, which hardly constitutes a reasonable effort. Therefore, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time, and Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. It follows that his requests for status regarding appointment of counsel (Docs. 6, 7) are now MOOT.

  Two motions seeking default judgment appear in this action, both filed the same day. The Clerk denied the motion for entry of default (see Docs. 8, 10), but his motion for default judgment (Doc. 9) is still pending. Because Defendants have not yet been served in this action, this motion is DENIED.

  The next pleading before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to place facts on the record (Doc. 11). Essentially, this motion seeks a status report on this case, as Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the progress to date. He points out that Defendants have not responded to his complaint, but the Court has not directed the Marshal to effect service upon any defendant. Such action will not be ordered until the Court has completed a review of the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A, and the Court cannot determine what other relief might be sought in this motion. As Plaintiff must understand, the Court has a heavy case load, and under the Constitution, criminal prosecutions must take priority over civil matters. Therefore, as to simply placing information in the record, this request is GRANTED; any other relief contemplated by this motion is DENIED.

  Plaintiff's most recent pleading is a motion to include 161 pages of grievances and other documents as exhibits in this action; he also asks to speak with the undersigned judge (Doc. 12). Ex parte communications between a litigant and the Court would be inappropriate; therefore, his request to speak with the Court is DENIED. However, the request to include the grievances and other documents is GRANTED; the Court and all parties shall consider these documents in support of the complaint. Plaintiff is advised that these voluminous documents will now become part of the Court's preliminary review of the complaint which, on its own, is 25 pages in length.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20050805

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.