Ferguson v. Ledvora

Full title: ANDRE FERGUSON, Plaintiff, v. RONALD LEDVORA, M.D., et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 23, 2014

Case No. 13 C 7781 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 23, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 13 C 7781

06-23-2014

ANDRE FERGUSON, Plaintiff, v. RONALD LEDVORA, M.D., et al., Defendants.

Milton I. Shadur

SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court's brief June 20, 2014 memorandum order ("Order") has explained the unusual posture of this pro se action by Andre Ferguson ("Ferguson"). This supplement addresses two other matters that should be dealt with because of the case's current status.

First, because the failure to have served defendants before now cannot fairly be placed at Ferguson's doorstep, the time limit for obtaining service prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires extension. It is therefore ordered that such time period be extended on an open-ended basis, with no specified time limit set until further order of court.

Next, it is true that Ferguson can be faulted for his failure to follow up on his original Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion"), a subject as to which this Court's initial December 30, 2013 memorandum order was explicit in stating:

To turn to the motion, Ferguson has provided a simple and puzzling "yes" answer to its most important provision, which reads:

2. I declare that I have contacted the following attorneys/ organizations seeking representation.

That won't do the job, for our Court of Appeals requires a showing of a prisoner's good-faith efforts to seek counsel willing to take such cases on a pro bono basis (but with the possibility that a successful result can carry with it an award of fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988). Accordingly the Motion is denied without prejudice to its reassertion in a properly supported form.

Nonetheless this Court has always been of the view that all participants in the justice system -- any pro se plaintiff, his or her targeted defendant or defendants and this Court -- are far better served by a designation of counsel to represent the plaintiff if the requirements established by our Court of Appeals have been satisfied.

Accordingly this Court is providing Ferguson with new forms for that purpose together with a copy of this supplement to the Order, and it is expected that if Ferguson proceeds properly in the manner stated in the Order this Court's new colleague Honorable Manish Shah (to whose calendar this case is going via random reassignment) will take appropriate action.

__________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge