govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-1_24-cr-00035-4

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) 
v. ) No. 1:24-cr-00035-JPH-TAB 
) 
DEVERE L. ABAIR, ) -01 
) 
Defendant. ) 
ORDER 
Defendant Devere L. Abair filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 
Dkt. 33. Additionally, Mr. Abair filed a motion for return of property. Dkt. 30. 
The Court will address each below. 
I. Motion for Counsel
Mr. Abair filed a motion for appointment of counsel, requesting that: "the 
Court please grant [him] coun[sel] for a coram nobis, stay on probation, and 
return of property." 
At this time the motion for counsel, dkt. [33], is denied. 
There is no statutory authority entitling a defendant to counsel when 
pursuing a collateral attack on a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a 
sentence. See United States v. Blake, 986 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2021). 
Accordingly, any request for the appointment of the federal public defender's 
office is denied. PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
Because the Court is unable to appoint counsel, it sua sponte considers 
whether pro bono counsel should be recruited. The Court declines to do so. 
When addressing a request for pro bono counsel, "the district court is to make 
the following inquiries: (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?" Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pruitt 
v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007)).
The first question, whether litigants have made a reasonable attempt to 
secure private counsel on their own, "is a mandatory, threshold inquiry that 
must be determined before moving to the second inquiry." Eagan, 987 F.3d at 
682; see also Thomas v. Anderson, 912 F.3d 971, 978 (7th Cir. 2019) (holding 
that, because plaintiff did not show that he tried to obtain counsel on his own 
or that he was precluded from doing so, the judge's denial of these requests 
was not an abuse of discretion). Mr. Abair has not indicated whether he has 
attempted to contact any attorneys with requests for representation. 
Accordingly, the Court finds that he has not made a reasonable effort to recruit 
counsel on his own before seeking the Court's assistance. See Thomas, 912 
F.3d at 978.
As to the second question, the Court finds that Mr. Abair's current 
motion for counsel reflects that he is competent to set forth the facts and law in 
support of his potential petition for writ of error coram nobis without legal 
assistance. See dkt. 33. For these reasons, Mr. Abair has not shown that pro PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
bono counsel should be recruited, and any request for assistance with 
recruiting counsel must therefore be denied. 
II. Motion for Return of Property 
Mr. Abair filed a motion for "the return of property held by probation." 
Dkt. 30 at 1. However, Mr. Abair did not specify what property he seeks to have 
returned. For this reason, his motion for return of property, dkt. [30], must be 
denied as presented without prejudice. If Mr. Abair wishes to renew his 
motion, he must identify the property that was taken and describe the 
circumstances under which it was taken. 
SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution: 
 
Devere L. Abair 
Knox County Jail 
2375 S. Old Decker Rd. 
Vincennes, IN 47591 
 
All Electronically Registered Counsel 
 
Date: 6/17/2026 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight