govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_23-cv-03961-7

Page 1 of 3 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
CANDRICE BOYD, 
 
 P l a i n t i f f , 
 
v. 
 
PROTESTANT MEMORIAL MEDICAL 
CENTER, INC., d/b/a MEMORIAL 
HOSPITAL BELLEVILLE, 
 
 D e f e n d a n t . 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
ORDER 
 
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge: 
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Candrice Boyd’s Renewed Motion 
to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 290). Boyd a sserts that, while she has demonstrated 
competence in pretrial litigation, the demands of the case now exceed her capabilities as 
it progresses toward trial. (Id.). 
A district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 
counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). However, ci vil litigants do not ha ve a right, either 
constitutional or statutory, to court-appointed counsel. Pruitt v. Mote , 503 F.3d 647, 649 
(7th Cir. 2007). The Seventh Circuit has instru cted courts to consid er two factors when 
determining whether recruitment of counsel is warranted: (1) whether the plaintiff has 
made a reasonable attempt to obtain counse l or been effectively precluded from doing 
so; and (2) given the difficulty of the case, whether the plaintiff appears competent to 
litigate it herself. Id. at 654. Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 2 of 3 
 
When considering the difficulty of the case, the Court must determine “the 
particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present” the case to the judge 
and jury. Olson v. Morgan , 750 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 
655). Factors to be considered include “the plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, 
educational level, and litigation experience.” Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655. In conducting this 
inquiry, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his 
own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally 
attend litigation: evidence gathering, prep aring and responding to motions and other 
court filings, and trial.” Id. (emphasis omitted). 
 Here, Boyd has attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain counsel on her own. The 
Court is not convinced, however, that the de mands of the case exceed her capabilities. 
Boyd has proven herself to be skilled at self-representation. She has navigated discovery 
on her own and has consistently submitted well written and coherent briefs. The Court 
is confident that she can continue to advocate on her own behalf through the dispositive 
motion phase. 
Accordingly, Boyd’s Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 290) is DENIED 
without prejudice. If the case proceeds past summary judgment, the Court will consider 
appointing counsel for Boyd to represent her at trial. 
 The issue of counsel having been decided, the Court AMENDS the scheduling 
order as follows: 
a. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before July 15, 2026; 
 
b. Responses to dispositive motions shall be filed on or before August 14, Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 3 of 3
2026;
c. Reply briefs, if any, sha ll be filed on or before August 28, 2026;
d. The Presumptive Trial Month is SET for November 2026. A final pretrial 
conference will be set by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 12, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight