Czesak v. Kashyap et al
| Anthony Czesat and Anthony Czesak |
| MD Ravindra Kashyap and MD Aiyub Patel |
| 1:2024cv01006 |
| January 5, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| James E Shadid |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ONLY ORDER: Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel. #2 . 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 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. Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1053 (7th Cir. 2019). In other words, this inquiry is an individualized one based upon the record as a whole, the nature of the claims, and the plaintiffs 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). Here, Plaintiff alleges several claims arising from Defendants' threats to take his father off life support. #1 . The claims are not complex and involve issues of which Plaintiff has direct, personal knowledge. Additionally, Plaintiff's post-graduate education renders him more capable of properly asserting his claims, and he does not claim that he cannot otherwise afford an attorney. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has engaged in efforts to procure legal services, but this alone is insufficient for the Court to grant his request. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion #2 is DENIED. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 2/9/2024. (CTM)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Anthony Czesak. Responses due by 2/22/2024 (HS) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Anthony Czesat. (Filing fee $ 405 paid, receipt 100003800) (Attachments: #1 civil cover sheet, #2 receipt)(ED) |
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.
