Jasso v. Baker

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

GERARDO JASSO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-04187-JEH

TYRONE BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Order

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 alleging that Defendants Correctional Officer John Doe and Dentist John Doe

were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. (Doc. 5). The Court named Wardens Tyrone Baker and Jeremiah

Brown, in their official capacities, to help Plaintiff identify the Doe Defendants.

(Doc. 6 at pp. 8-9). This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to

Request Counsel (Doc. 21) and Motion to Identify the Doe Defendants (Doc. 22).

For the reasons stated infra, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.

I

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel asking the Court to appoint an

attorney to represent him. (Doc. 21). “There is no right to court-appointed counsel

in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). When

evaluating a Motion to Request Counsel, the Court must consider: “(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?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655

(7th Cir. 2007). “When evaluating a plaintiff’s competence, district courts should

normally consider the plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, education level,

and litigation experience.” Bracey v. Grondin, 712 F.3d 1012, 1018 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013)

(citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). The inquiry is individualized, taking all the relevant

facts into consideration, including the stage of the litigation. Navejar v. Igiola, 718

F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court may also consider “the perceived merits

of–or likelihood of success on–an indigent plaintiff’s claims in its decision whether

to allocate scarce pro bono counsel resources to the case before it.” Watts v. Kidman,

42 F.4th 755, 764 (7th Cir. 2022).

Plaintiff attached three letters from attorneys who declined to represent him

to his Motion. (Doc. 21 at pp. 7-9). The Court finds that Plaintiff made a reasonable

attempt to secure counsel on his own. Regarding his competency, Plaintiff states

it is difficult to understand medical records and other documents because he does

not speak or read English well, as Spanish is his primary language. Plaintiff states

he currently takes Zoloft for a mental health condition, which causes drowsiness,

severe headaches, and restless limb movements. Plaintiff also states he has no legal

experience and limited access to the law library. Finally, Plaintiff states this case

involves medical issues, which may require expert witnesses.

Although English is not Plaintiff’s primary language, his pleadings are well-

written, organized, and include citations to caselaw. (Doc. 21). There is no

indication that another inmate drafted his pleadings. This case is currently in the

discovery phase; the Doe Defendants have not been identified yet. Although

Plaintiff takes medication for a mental health condition, he appears competent to

perform the basic tasks of litigation, especially at this stage of the proceedings. See

Medrano v. Boland, 841 F. App’x 1008, 1010 (7th Cir. 2021) (“there is no entitlement

to recruited counsel for prisoners with a history of mental impairments”); Perry v.

Sims, 900 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir. 2021) (mental illness “is a pertinent and important

factor” but does not create a “categorical” entitlement to counsel); Olson, 750 F.3d

at 712 (noting that prisoner’s “capable pleadings suggested that he was competent

despite his mental-health problems”). The Court named Wardens Baker and

Brown to assist Plaintiff with identifying the Doe Defendants. The Court finds that

Plaintiff appears competent to litigate the case himself, especially at this early

stage. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

II

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Identify John Doe Defendants to provide the

information he currently has regarding their identities. (Doc. 22). Plaintiff states

John Doe Defendant #1 worked first shift from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at Hill

Correctional Center on October 3, 2023. At approximately 12:30 p.m., John Doe

Defendant #1 was on duty in the restrictive housing unit. Plaintiff states

Defendant John Doe Dentist, a male of Asian descent, worked first shift on

December 15, 2023, and April 29, 2024, at Lawrence Correctional Center.

Plaintiff did not provide the Doe Defendants’ names in his Motion. It is

unclear what relief Plaintiff is seeking. Plaintiff attached interrogatories for the

Defendants to his Motion. As this Court stated in the Scheduling Order, discovery

requests and responses are not filed with the Court, unless they are the subject of

a motion to compel. (Doc. 16).

Defendants Baker and Brown provided their initial disclosures to Plaintiff

on August 21, 2025. (Doc. 20). In their initial disclosures, Defendants were required

to identify the Doe Defendants, and if unable to ascertain their identities,

Defendants were required to produce any relevant information to assist Plaintiff

with identifying them. (Doc. 16 at pp. 3-4). As such, Plaintiff may have the

information he needs to file a motion to substitute the real names of the Doe

Defendants. Under the circumstances, the Court will sua sponte provide Plaintiff

with an additional 30 days to identify the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff is ORDERED

to file a motion to substitute the real names of the Doe Defendants by October 3,

2025. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the Doe Defendants without

prejudice, unless good cause for the failure can be shown.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel [21] is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Identify John Doe Defendants [22] is DENIED.

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a motion to substitute the real names of the

Doe Defendants by October 3, 2025. The failure to do so will result in the

dismissal of the Doe Defendants without prejudice, unless good cause for

the failure can be shown.

It is so ordered.

Entered: September 3, 2025

s/Jonathan E. Hawley

U.S. District Judge