Opinion
No. 01 C 8322
February 11, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Prisoner plaintiff James Long ("Long") has submitted a self prepared handwritten Motion for Appointment of Counsel, setting out the reasons that he perceives as calling for the appointment of a second lawyer to represent him. Because that motion simply misperceives the thrust and the import of Long's acknowledged constitutional right of access to the courts, it is denied.
Long initially filed a detailed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint, accompanying the filled-out form provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office for that purpose with a long and detailed handwritten elaboration of his claims. Because this Court reviewed the Complaint and considered it to be nonfrivolous in the legal sense defined by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and expanded upon by Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992), it promptly followed its virtually universal practice in such situations of appointing a member of this District Court's trial bar to represent Long pro bono publico.
Appointed counsel Robert Cervone, Esq. took to his task in a responsible fashion, engaging in the activities he later described in his December 2, 2002 motion to withdraw (Ex. 1 to this memorandum order). After attorney Cervone had devoted extensive work to the case, Long advised him on November 18, 2002 "that he no longer wanted to be represented by Mr. Cervone."
This District Court's rules regarding pro bono appointments, withdrawals or terminations and any replacement appointments (see LR 83.36 through 83.39) do not require the appointing court to provide an impecunious pro se litigant with the legal equivalent of a series of doctors until one of them gives the patient the advice that the patient wants to hear. In this instance there is nothing to indicate that appointed attorney Cervone did anything other than to provide Long with entirely competent and responsible representation, and this Court has previously determined — and it hereby confirms its determination — that no new counsel will be appointed to represent Long ( see LR 83.39). Accordingly Long's current motion is denied.