Mitchell v. Osmundson
| Jerry L Mitchell |
| Rob Jeffreys, Stephen Howerter, Justin Hammers, . Osmundson and J Meaker |
| 1:2019cv01260 |
| July 30, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 9/3/2019. Plaintiff's motion for order #11 is DENIED. Plaintiff asks the Court to monitor this case, and that request is denied to the extent that Plaintiff is asking the Court to become involved in the discovery process. If Plaintiff desires the information, material, and photographs referenced in his motion, he should first file a discovery request with Defendant through Defendant's counsel in order to obtain it. Local Rule 26.3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of the docket sheet to Plaintiff that will show that he is proceeding pro se in this matter. (Docket Sheet attached.)(KE, ilcd)
|
| Prisoner Initial Partial Filing Fee received 8/29/2019, in the amount of $ 5.04; receipt number 24626008924 (KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for an Order to be issued by plaintiff. (DS, ilcd) Modified on 8/29/2019 to correct title. (KE, ilcd). |
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Jerry L Mitchell.. Osmundson waiver sent on 8/1/2019, answer due 9/30/2019. (DS, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 8/8/2019. Plaintiff's second motion for counsel #9 is DENIED. The Court does not possess the authority to require an attorney to accept pro bono appointments on civil cases such as this. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). The most that the Court can do is to ask for volunteer counsel. Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)(holding that it is a "fundamental premise that indigent civil litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to be represented by counsel in federal court."). In determining whether the Court should attempt to find an attorney to voluntarily take a case, "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.... The question is whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial." Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655 (emphasis in original). In other words, this inquiry is an individualized one based upon the record as a whole, the nature of the claims, and the plaintiff's ability to pursue his claims through all phases of the case, including discovery and trial. Navejar v. Iyioloa, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013). As the Seventh Circuit has acknowledged, "[a]lmost everyone would benefit from having a lawyer, but there are too many indigent litigants and too few lawyers willing and able to volunteer for these cases. DeWitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2014)(internal quotation omitted). Although the Seventh Circuit has held that appointment of counsel should occur in cases in which counsel would have made a difference in the outcome of the litigation (Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 465 (7th Cir. 2010)), the Seventh Circuit has also held that the test for appointment of counsel is not whether a lawyer could more effectively handle the case. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655. The test is whether the litigant is competent to litigate his own claims. Id. In the instant case, Plaintiff's claim has survived a merit review; he appears capable of reading and writing English; and he has filed cogent pleadings with the Court. Furthermore, Plaintiff has personal knowledge of the facts supporting his claim and appears capable of cross-examining Defendant regarding his version of the events. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has offered no reason why he cannot litigate this case or why his case differs from any other of the plethora of pro se plaintiffs who ask for the appointment of counsel in almost every case filed. DeWitt, 760 F.3d at 657-58. Plaintiff appears competent to litigate this case himself, and therefore, the Court denies his motion to appoint counsel. (KE, ilcd)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Jerry L Mitchell. Responses due by 8/20/2019. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(DS, ilcd) |
| Filing 8 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Dr. Osmundson on 8/1/2019. (SAG, ilcd) |
|
Filing 7
HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/1/2019. (SAG, ilcd)
|
|
Filing 6
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/1/2019. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED: 1. Pursuant to its merit review of the plaintiff's Complaintunder 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court finds that the plaintiff's Complaint states an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Osmundson. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case except at the Court's discretion and on a motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to effect service of process on Dr. Osmundson pursuant to the Court's standard procedures. 3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to dismiss all other named Defendants for failure to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)
|
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 7/31/2019. Plaintiff's motion to request counsel #5 is DENIED. The Court generally will not consider recruiting counsel for a pro se plaintiff until the Court determines that he possess a claim upon which relief can be granted after the Court conducts a merit review of the complaint. Plaintiff may renew his motion if his claim survives a merit review that the Court will conduct in the near future. (KE, ilcd)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Jerry L Mitchell. Responses due by 8/13/2019 (KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 4 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER by Jerry L Mitchell. (KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 3 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Jerry L Mitchell.(KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Colin Stirling Bruce. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Urbana Division, 201 S Vine Street, Urbana, IL 61802.Merit Review Deadline set for 8/19/2019. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Jerry L Mitchell. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(KE, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 7/30/2019 granting #3 Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $15.93. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to forward the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff`s account to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee (or immediately if no funds are available for that payment) the agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month`s income credited to Plaintiff`s account to the Clerk of Court. Income includes all deposits from any source. The agency having custody of the plaintiff shall forward these payments each time Plaintiff`s account exceeds $10, until the filing fee of $350 is paid in full. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff`s place of confinement, to the attention of the Trust Fund Office. (KE, ilcd)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
