Evans v. Tharp ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JULIUS EVANS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-cv-1066-JPG KRISTOPHER THARP, Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Julius Evans’s third motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 40). The Court has already found that he has made reasonable attempts to find counsel, but it has also found that, given the difficulty of the case, he appears to be competent to litigate it himself (Doc. 33). Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321-22 (7th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he question is whether the difficulty of the case—factually and legally—exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.” Id. at 655. The Court has found that it does not. Right now, there is a pending motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Kristopher Tharp (Doc. 38). The Court has already given Evans notice of what he must do in response (Doc. 39) and has provided him the Court’s Pro Se Litigant Guide. He may also consult other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and caselaw at the prison law library. The Court DENIES Evans’s third motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 40) and, in light of the lockdown limiting Evans’s access to the law library, ORDERS that his time to respond to the summary judgment motion is extended until April 8, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 12, 2024 s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE