Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning than Assigned Judge
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file in forma pauperis [#3] is granted and the initial partial filing fee is waived. The trust officials at Plaintiff's place of confinement shall collect monthly payments from Plaintiff's account as described below. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the resident trust office at Pinckneyville Correctional Center to facilitate compliance. However, Dr. Ghosh is dismissed as a Defendant. The Clerk shall issue summons to Defendants Nurse, Garbs, Thompson, D. Johnson, Iyola, Franklin, Siemens, Baily, Serrano, Barton, Bowman, Rabideau, and Thomas, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve them. The Clerk is further directed to send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form, Instructions for Submitting Documents, and a copy of this order. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [#4] is denied.
O [For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants, all employed at Stateville Correctional Center during the time in question, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on May 17, 2010, he hurt his ankle playing handball and that Dr. Ghosh prescribed him crutches, a low bunk and low gallery permit, a medical lay-in for seven days, and ice for the duration of the swelling. When he returned to his cell, Defendant Franklin took his crutches away. Despite his complaints to all of the Defendants, except Dr. Ghosh, Plaintiff's crutches were never returned. Plaintiff also alleges that he requested mental health treatment from all Defendants except Dr. Ghosh and was denied treatment.
According to the statement submitted with his in forma pauperis application, Plaintiff has neither available funds nor means to pay the initial partial filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) requires that a prisoner not be prohibited from bringing suit because of inability to pay, the initial partial filing fee is waived. The trust fund officer at the correctional facility where Plaintiff is housed is authorized to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff's trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from Plaintiff's trust fund account shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604, attn: Cashier's Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff's name and the case number assigned to this action. The Cook County Jail shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is transferred from the jail to another correctional facility.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. Here, accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated a colorable federal cause of action against all Defendants except Dr. Ghosh for deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. Davis v. Carter, 453 F.3d 686, 696 (7th Cir. 2006). As to Defendant Ghosh, the sum total of Plaintiff's allegations is that Dr. Ghosh provided him prompt medical attention after he injured his ankle and prescribed him treatment for his injury. A such, Plaintiff has failed to allege deliberate indifference. Dr. Ghosh is consequently dismissed as a Defendant.
The Clerk shall issue summons to Defendants Nurse, Garbs, Thompson, D. Johnson, Iyola, Franklin, Siemens, Baily, Serrano, Barton, Bowman, Rabideau, and Thomas, (hereinafter, "Defendants") forthwith and send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order.
The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendants. Any service forms necessary for Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve Defendants with process. The U.S. Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants. If any Defendants can no longer can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the Illinois Department of Corrections shall furnish the Marshal with that Defendant's last-known address. The information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service [or for proof of service, should a dispute arise] and any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Marshal. Address information shall not be maintained in the Court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. The Marshal is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendants in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service.
Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the original plus a judge's copy of every document filed. In addition, Plaintiff must send an exact copy of any Court filing to Defendants [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on his behalf]. Every document filed must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were mailed and the date of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these instructions may be disregarded by the Court or returned to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The motion is denied. Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. See Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, a district court may, in its discretion, "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1997). In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court must consider: (1) whether, given the degree of difficulty of the case, a plaintiff appears competent to try it himself; and (2) whether the assistance of counsel would provide a substantial benefit to the court or the parties, potentially affecting the outcome of the case. Gil, 381 F.3d at 656, relying on Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993).
After considering the above factors, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. Although Plaintiff has articulated colorable claims, he has alleged no physical or mental disability that might preclude him from adequately investigating the facts giving rise to his complaint. Neither the legal issues raised in the complaint nor the evidence that might support Plaintiff's claims are so complex or intricate that a trained attorney is necessary.
As Plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting his case, the Court declines to appoint counsel for Plaintiff at this time. It should additionally be noted that the Court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in the handling of their lawsuits. Should the case proceed to a point that ...