Swafford v. Dinn et al
| Robert L. Swafford |
| Abigail Dinn, Ryan A. Blake, Steven A. Smith and Thomas Jordan |
| 3:2020cv00705 |
| July 20, 2020 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Gilbert C Sison |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 11, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (lmb) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE: Robert L. Swafford was directed to file the attached form regarding consenting or declining to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The time for doing so has now passed, and the Court has not received the form. As required by Administrative Order No. 257, Robert L. Swafford shall return the form within 7 days or face possible sanctions. The Clerk notes that due to the COVID-19 public health crisis, deadlines that were pending on or before April 1, 2020 were extended in accord with Administrative Order No. 261 and/or Amended Administrative Order No. 261. This automated notice does not take into account any such extensions. If, after the expiration of the 7-day deadline set forth herein, the Court chooses to take further action, all applicable deadline extensions will be considered at that time. Consent due by 8/18/2020. (rah) |
Filing 4
ORDER denying #3 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), however, the court has discretion to recruit counsel to represent indigents in appropriate cases. See Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). In evaluating whether counsel should be recruited, courts must examine what are known as the Pruitt factors and apply them to the specific circumstances of the case. See Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760 (7th Cir. 2010). The court must ask: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself? Id. at 761 (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654). The first prong of the analysis is a threshold question. If a plaintiff has not tried to obtain counsel on his own, the court should deny the request. See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655. Here, Plaintiff has not met the threshold burden of showing that he made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own. In fact, his motion is silent as to this issue. Further, the Court cannot ascertain from the record whether Swafford is indigent. Thus, the Court DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel at this time (Doc. 3). Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 7/20/2020. (klh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Robert L. Swafford. (lmb) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Robert L. Swafford.(lmb) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This case has been randomly assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257. The parties are advised that their consent is required if the assigned Magistrate Judge is to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. As set forth in Administrative Order No. 257, each party will be required to file a Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form indicating consent or nonconsent to the jurisdiction of the assigned Magistrate Judge. If all parties do not consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction, the case will be randomly assigned to a district judge for all further proceedings and the parties cannot later consent to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge. The parties are further advised that they are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. Within 21 days of this Notice, the following party or parties must file the attached form indicating consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent: Robert L. Swafford. A link regarding the magistrate judges in this district is attached for your convenience: #http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/BenefitsofConsent.pdf. All future documents must bear case number 20-705-GCS. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. Consent due by 8/10/2020 (lmb) |
| Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 44625013052 (lmb) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Southern 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.
