The plaintiff's motion for court appointed attorney have been considered.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are empowered only to "request" counsel. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 300 (1989). There is no constitutional right to an attorney in a civil proceeding. Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 700 (7th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the question is not whether an attorney would help the plaintiff's case, but whether, given the difficulty of the case, the plaintiff seems competent to litigate it herself. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653, 655 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
The court finds that the claims asserted by the plaintiff are not of sufficient complexity or merit as to surpass the plaintiff's ability to properly develop and present them. Regardless, the plaintiff is within the spectrum of "most indigent parties" because he has had a meaningful opportunity to present his claims, he has demonstrated familiarity with his claims and the ability to present them, because the issues presented by those claims are not complex, and because this does not appear to be a case in which the presence of counsel would make a difference in the outcome. See Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993); DiAngelo v. Illinois Department of Public Aid, 891 F.2d 1260, 1262 (7th Cir. 1989) ("[m]ost indigent parties in civil cases must fend for themselves here, attempting to persuade lawyers to take their cases and representing themselves if members of the bar think their claims weak").
Based on the foregoing, the motion for appointment of counsel [dkt 22] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution: Willie Gene Maffett
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West U.S. 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Electronically registered counsel