Summary
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a pro se plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), holding that the court did not abuse its discretion where the plaintiff demonstrated ability to file a complaint and recall events, and the court provided instructions for amendment. The opinion clarifies that the standard from *Kadamovas v. Stevens* does not create a bright-line rule barring appointment of counsel before defendants respond; a judge may recruit counsel earlier to help amend a complaint. The court also confirmed appellate jurisdiction over a conditional dismissal without prejudice after the amendment deadline passed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Mapes's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for counsel. The judge properly assessed Mapes's competence and the difficulty of the case under Pruitt v. Mote, and gave Mapes an opportunity to amend with instructions. Mapes failed to renew his request or show he was unable to follow the instructions.
Key quotations
“The judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied Mapes's request for counsel and advised him on how to file an amended complaint.” (at 4)
“So it's incorrect to read this sentence in Kadamovas as restricting a district judge's discretion to recruit counsel for a deserving plaintiff until after the defendant has answered the complaint.” (at 5)
Factual background
On January 21, 2019, CVS employees refused to issue Mapes a MoneyGram transfer, leading to a verbal conflict. The store manager called police, who arrested Mapes for trespassing. At the jail, guards allegedly assaulted him and medical staff ignored his disabilities. Mapes sued the State of Indiana, CVS, and others under the ADA and other laws.
Procedural history
Mapes filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of Indiana alleging violations of the ADA and other claims. The district court denied his motion for counsel, dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and gave him until March 22, 2019 to amend. Mapes did not amend and instead appealed.