# Brown v. Watson

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · January 11, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157203

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** January 11, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157203

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CORTEZ BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 21-cv-138-JPG

RICHARD WATSON, TRINITY SERVICE
GROUP, DR. DAVID MARCOWITZ,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Cortez Brown’s motion for recruitment of
counsel (Doc. 147).
Although there is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases, the
district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to recruit counsel for an indigent
litigant. Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864, 866-67 (7th Cir. 2013); Romanelli
v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010). The Court must consider whether the indigent
plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d
692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007)). If so, 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.” Navejar, 718 F.3d at 696
(quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655).
On April 5, 2021, the Court dismissed Brown’s first motion for counsel, finding that he
had not demonstrated reasonable efforts to locate counsel on his own or shown that he was
effectively precluded from searching for an attorney (Doc. 37). The Court further advised
Brown that if he sought counsel in the future, he needed to provide documents supporting his
efforts to locate counsel.
On November 11, 2022, the Court appointed counsel for Brown sua sponte because of a
novel and complex legal question this case presents (Doc. 104). The appointment was limited to
briefing on the legal issue and was terminated when the Court decided that issue (Doc. 126).
In his pending motion, Brown did not heed the Court’s earlier advice to provide

documentation of his efforts to obtain counsel. Additionally, based on his filings, the Court
believes Brown is competent to represent himself at this stage of the case. At the moment, a
good part of this case turns on facts of which Brown likely has personal knowledge. Brown is
capable of competently responding to the pending summary judgment motions by putting his
personal knowledge into affidavit form and filing it with the Court.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Brown’s motion for
recruitment of counsel (Doc. 147). The Court further ORDERS that Brown shall have up to and
including February 16, 2024, to respond to the three pending summary judgment motions (Docs.
132, 136, & 141).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 11, 2024

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157203. Public record. Not legal advice.