Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mapes v. Hatcher Real Estate

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

November 6, 2019

ERIC J. MAPES, and JENELLE M. KELLY-MAPES, Plaintiffs,
v.
HATCHER REAL ESTATE et al., Defendants.

          ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND/ATTACH AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR RECUSAL

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs Eric Mapes and Jenelle M. Kelly-Mapes' (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Amend/Attach, Dkt. 35, and Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration of Disability Accommodation Request, and Motion for Change/Recusal of Judge, Dkt. 36. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Amend/Attach is granted and the Motion for Reconsideration and Recusal is denied.

         I. DISCUSSION

         The Plaintiffs ask the Court to amend or attach an exhibit to their Amended Complaint and to reconsider denial of their request for assistance in recruiting counsel and denial of their motion to recuse. The Court will address each request in turn.

         A. Motion to Amend/Attach

         In the Motion to Amend/Attach, the Plaintiffs assert that they have delivered in person to the Clerk's Office, Exhibit 3, a flash drive containing three video files and two sealed medical documents. The Motion, Dkt. 35, is granted in that the Court acknowledges receipt of the flash drive as Exhibit 3 to the Amended Complaint and filed at Dkt. 34.

         B. The Motion for Reconsideration of Disability Accommodation Request

         As the Court previously explained (in Dkts. 12, 24 and 27), that motions to reconsider “serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nokes, 263 F.R.D. 518, 526 (N.D. Ind. 2009). The motion “will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Relief pursuant to a motion to reconsider is an “extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008).

         The Plaintiffs first ask the Court to reconsider their request for assistance in recruiting counsel due to their low income, and because they are disabled individuals and “appointment of counsel would qualify as a reasonable accommodation.” (Dkt. 36 at 1.) Plaintiffs explain that they have contacted Indiana Legal Services, Legal Aid Society and that “many attorneys have ref[u]sed the Disabled Plaintiffs counsel over the financial aspect.” Id. The Court concedes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the first prong that the Court must examine in determining whether to assist in recruiting counsel -

When confronted with 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?

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-655 (7th Cir. 2007).

         Regarding the second prong, despite having a disability, the Plaintiffs appear competent to litigate this matter themselves at this early stage of the proceedings. This is not a case in which the Court is unable to discern the claim. Rather, the Court reviewed the Amended Complaint and identified a plausible claim that was permitted to proceed in this action. (See Dkt. 28.) As such, this is not a case in which counsel is necessary, at this stage, in order to clarify or amplify the claim. Beals v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 359 (7th Cir. 2015).

         The Plaintiffs' request for the Court's assistance with recruiting counsel is not foreclosed permanently; rather, their request is again denied as premature. The defendants have not yet been served or had an opportunity to respond. The Seventh Circuit has found that “until the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff's need for assistance of counsel . . . cannot be gauged.” Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013).

         C. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.