United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
G. WILKERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
pending before the Court are the motions for recruitment of
counsel (Docs. 2, 10) and the motion for preliminary
injunctive relief (Doc. 14) filed by Plaintiff. The motions
for recruitment of counsel are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE and the motion for preliminary injunctive
relief is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
has no constitutional nor statutory right to a
Court-appointed attorney in this matter. See Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007). However, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides that the Court “may
request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” Prior to making such a request, the Court
must first determine whether Plaintiff has made reasonable
efforts to secure counsel without Court intervention (or
whether has he been effectively prevented from doing so).
Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073
(7th Cir. 1992). If he has, then the Court next considers
whether, “given the difficulty of the case, [does] the
plaintiff appear to be competent to try it himself . . .
.” Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321-322 (7th
Cir. 1993); 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 or jury
himself.”). In order to make such a determination, the
Court may consider, among other things, the complexity of the
issues presented and the Plaintiff's education, skill,
and experience as revealed by the record. Pruitt,
503 F.3d at 655-656. Ultimately, the Court must “take
account of all [relevant] evidence in the record” and
determine whether Plaintiff has the capacity to litigate this
matter without the assistance of counsel. Navejar v.
Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013).
represents that he wrote letters to “civil
attorneys” but that no responses were given. Such a
representation is an insufficient showing that he tried to
obtain counsel prior to filing his motion. Plaintiff shall
either provide a copy of the letters that he sent to the
“civil attorneys” or he shall contact at least
three attorneys in an attempt to seek representation in this
matter. Plaintiff may refile his motion for recruitment of
counsel provided he attach the letters that he sent to the
attorneys and any responses he receives (if any).
preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff has not provided
sufficient information or argument to warrant such relief at
this juncture. Plaintiff is informed that a preliminary
injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic
remedy” for which there must be a “clear
showing” that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)
(quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R Miller, & Mary
Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2948 (5th ed.
1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is “to
minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate
resolution of the lawsuit.” Faheem-El v.
Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff
has the burden of demonstrating:
1. a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits;
2. no adequate remedy at law; and
3. irreparable harm absent the injunction.
Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept.
Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). As to the
first hurdle, the Court must determine whether
“plaintiff has any likelihood of success - in other
words, a greater than negligible chance of winning.”
AM General Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 311 F.3d
796, 804 (7th Cir. 2002). Once Plaintiff has met his burden,
the Court must weigh “the balance of harm to the
parties if the injunction is granted or denied and also
evaluate the effect of an injunction on the public
interest.” Id.; Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d
654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). “This equitable balancing
proceeds on a sliding-scale analysis; the greater the
likelihood of success of the merits, the less heavily the
balance of harms must tip in the moving party's
favor.” Korte, 735 F.3d at 665. In addition,
the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a preliminary
injunction must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further
than necessary to correct the harm . . ., ” and
“be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that
harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Finally, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), a preliminary
injunction would bind only the parties, their officers or
agents, or persons in active concert with the parties or
is DIRECTED to file a brief as to why he is
entitled to preliminary injunctive relief in the areas
outlined in his amended complaint (regarding training of
prison employees). Plaintiff shall file his brief by
September 29, 2017. Plaintiff is
WARNED that the failure to file a brief by