Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Grubb v. Funk

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 22, 2015

ERIC A. GRUBB, #K96055, Plaintiff,
v.
SANDRA FUNK and TOM MOORE, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Chief District Judge.

This matter is now before the Court for general case management, including consideration of Plaintiff's motions for recruitment of counsel (Docs. 3, 14). Plaintiff has missed the deadline for filing his second amended complaint, which was due on May 27, 2015 (Doc. 17). Therefore, this action is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with a court order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Before dismissing this case, the Court will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint. However, for the reasons set forth below, his requests for recruitment of counsel shall be denied.

Notice of Impending Dismissal

This case has been pending since December 30, 2014. On that date, Plaintiff filed his original complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge his transfer from Western Illinois Correctional Center ("Western") to Menard Correctional Center ("Menard") on December 3, 2014. Plaintiff alleged that he should have been transferred to Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville") instead because the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") has a record of his three known enemies at Menard. Plaintiff named Jeff Korte (Western's warden) and Sandra Funk (IDOC's transfer coordinator) as defendants. He requested monetary damages and a prison transfer (Doc. 1, p. 6).

This Court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice on January 22, 2015 (Doc. 10). Upon preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court identified two claims against Funk and Korte, i.e., a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim (Count 1) and an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim (Count 2). Both were meritless. The Court dismissed Count 1 with prejudice and Count 2 without prejudice. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before February 26, 2015 ( Id. ).

Plaintiff filed a timely amended complaint on February 5, 2015 (Doc. 13). This time, he named Sandra Funk (IDOC transfer coordinator) and Tom Moore (Plaintiff's counselor at Western) in connection with his claim that Moore and Funk improperly transferred him from Western to Menard, despite the fact that inmates at Menard posed a risk to his safety ( Id. at 5). He narrowed his claim to an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim (Count 2) against these defendants.

After reviewing the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court concluded that Plaintiff again failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against either defendant (Doc. 17). Plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to file a second amended complaint on or before May 27, 2015 ( Id. ). He was provided with a blank civil rights complaint form for use in preparing the second amended complaint. Plaintiff was also warned that failure to file a properly completed pleading by the deadline could result in dismissal of the action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Plaintiff failed to file his second amended complaint by the deadline. He also failed to request an extension. The Court has received no communications from Plaintiff for three months and is not aware of any impediments to filing an amended pleading. Therefore, this action is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). However, Plaintiff shall be given one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint, consistent with the instructions for doing so in Document 17 and according to the deadline listed below.

Motions to Recruit Counsel (Docs. 3, 14)

Plaintiff's two motions for recruitment of counsel (Docs. 3, 14) shall be denied. Plaintiff filed his first motion on December 30, 2014, the same date he filed his original complaint. In it, Plaintiff indicated that he had only begun the process of looking for counsel on his own (Doc. 3, p. 1). He also indicated that he has some high school education and is taking two prescription medications ( Id. at 2). At the time of dismissing Plaintiff's original complaint on January 22, 2015, the Court held the motion for recruitment of counsel in abeyance (Doc. 10, p. 8).

Plaintiff filed a supplement to his motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 14) on February 24, 2015. The supplement consists of letters from attorneys who declined to represent Plaintiff in this matter ( Id. ). When dismissing his amended complaint on April 22, 2015 (Doc. 17), the Court held both motions (Docs. 3, 14) in abeyance pending receipt of the second amended complaint. The Court will not consider the motions for recruitment of counsel.

There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, the district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to recruit counsel for an indigent litigant. Childress v. Walker, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 2408070 (7th Cir. May 21, 2015); Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864, 866-67 (7th Cir. 2013). The Seventh Circuit recently reiterated the standards for determining whether the district court should act under Section 1915(e)(1):

In Pruitt [v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc), ] we refined the standards for evaluating whether to recruit counsel. If a plaintiff makes a reasonable attempt to secure counsel, the court must examine whether the difficulty of the case-factually and legally-exceeds the particular plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to coherently present it.' Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655. This inquiry does not focus solely on the plaintiff's ability to try his case-it also includes other tasks that normally attend litigation' such as evidence gathering' and preparing and responding to motions.' Id. When ruling on a motion to recruit counsel, the court should take account of all evidence in the record relevant to the plaintiff's capacity to litigate.

Id. at *7 (quoting Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to secure counsel on his own. Upon review of the pleadings filed to date in this matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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