UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CLARRISSA SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 22-cv-2240-JPG

AISIN MANUFACTURING,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Clarrissa Smith’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) and for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 4) in this employment case alleging race discrimination and retaliation. I. In Forma Pauperis Status A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees.

(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim.

(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Corgain v. Miller,

(7th Cir. 1983). An action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire into the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner,

(7th Cir. 1982). The Court is satisfied from Smith’s affidavit that she is indigent. The Court further finds that the action is not clearly frivolous or malicious and does not fail to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). The plaintiff having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must order service of process by a United States Marshal or Deputy Marshal or other specially appointed person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3);

(d). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk

of Court to send the plaintiff a sufficient number of blank summons forms and USM-285 forms along with this order. The plaintiff shall complete the summons form for issuance by the Clerk of Court. If the plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals Service to serve process in this case, the Court DIRECTS the plaintiff to provide to the United States Marshals Service the summons issued in this case, the appropriately completed USM-285 forms and sufficient copies of the complaint for service on the defendant. The Court further DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of the aforementioned documents from the plaintiff and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(c)(3), to serve a copy of summons, complaint and this order upon the defendants in any manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as directed by the plaintiff. Costs of service shall be borne by the United States. II. Recruitment of Counsel Whether to recruit an attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant is within the sound discretion of the district court. Pruitt v. Mote,

(7th Cir. 2007); Jackson v. County of McLean,

(7th Cir. 1992). There is absolutely no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Pruitt,

. Pursuant to

(e)(1), the Court may request the assistance of counsel in an appropriate civil case where a litigant is proceeding in forma pauperis. Mallard v. U.S. District Court,

(1989); Pruitt,

. Local Rule 83.1(i) obligates members of the bar of this Court to accept assignments, provided an assignment is not made more than once during a 12-month period. In deciding the request for counsel, the Court should ask (1) whether the indigent plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or has been effectively precluded from doing so

and (2) whether, given the difficulty of the case, the plaintiff appears at that time to be competent to litigate it herself. Pruitt,

-55 (citing Farmer v. Haas,

(7th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he question is whether the difficulty of the case – factually and legally – exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.” Id. at 655. In making this inquiry, courts usually consider factors such as the plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, educational level, litigation experience, intellectual capacity and psychological history. Id. The plaintiff refers to efforts to retain counsel herself but has not provided any specifics from which the Court could find her efforts were reasonable. For this reason, the Court DENIES

without prejudice her motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 4). She may reapply with documentation of her efforts to obtain counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 28, 2022

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE