United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
August 5, 2005.
BRIAN JONES, Plaintiff,
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. § 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.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.