Opinion
Cause No. 1:04-CV-00064.
April 28, 2005
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Dewayne Higdon, who is pro se, filed a Motion for Counsel requesting, for the fourth time, that the Court appoint counsel on his behalf. (Docket # 92.) The Court denied Higdon's prior three motions seeking appointment of counsel due to Higdon's failure to properly complete a questionnaire which requested the names and addresses of at least three attorneys whom Higdon contacted for assistance but who refused to take his case. See Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1072 (7th Cir. 1992) (stating that a number of factors are considered in deciding whether an indigent's claim merits appointment of counsel, however, a threshold inquiry is whether or not the litigant has attempted to secure counsel).
On April 26, 2005, Higdon filed the questionnaire a second time, together with his fourth motion for appointment of counsel; yet, the questionnaire is again incomplete. While Higdon provided the name of two agencies and one law firm, the questionnaire requires that he provide the names and addresses of at least three attorneys he has contacted, the dates on which the contacts were made, and the reasons each refused to take his case. Simply providing the name of an agency or law firm, without providing the specific attorney's name who considered his case, is insufficient. See Ballard v. Duckworth, 656 F. Supp. 693, 695 (N.D. Ind. 1986) ("decision whether to appoint counsel in a case rests within the sound discretion of the court"). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Counsel (Docket # 92) is again hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.