Henderson et al v. Mitchell et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARGARETTA M. HENDERSON and
BRYANT K. WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TIA MITCHELL and
ADONIS J. JACKSON,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:23-CV-1117-MAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is currently before the Court on the “Response” that Plaintiffs filed to
the Court’s Order denying Ms. Henderson’s motion for counsel (Doc. 27; see Doc. 25).
Plaintiffs have filed three motions for counsel. The first was denied because they
did not provide any financial information to demonstrate that they were indigent and
qualified for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 8). The second and third motions—which were
considered only as to Ms. Henderson because she was the only one who signed the
motions and provided financial information—were denied after the Court determined
that she was not indigent (Doc. 17, pp. 3–5; Doc. 25, pp. 2–3).
After the third motion for counsel was denied, Plaintiff Henderson filed a
“response” to the Court’s Order, contending that she thinks the Court should recruit
counsel for her because she was out of work for six months following the accident and
Case 3:23-cv-01117-DWD Document 28 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
not making any money during that time (Doc. 27, p. 2).1 Additionally, attached to the
“response” is a letter from the Social Security Administration verifying the amount of
Plaintiff Bryant Williams’ monthly benefits (Doc. 27-1).
The Court construes the “Response” as a motion to reconsider the denial of
Plaintiffs’ request for counsel. A court has inherent power to reconsider interlocutory
orders at any time prior to the entry of final judgment. E.g., Marconi Wireless T. Co. of Am.
v. United States, 320 U.S. 1, 47–48 (1943); Terry v. Spencer, 888 F.3d 890, 893 (7th Cir. 2018);
FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). That being said, reconsideration of an interlocutory order is only
appropriate when a court has misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension, or where a significant change in the law or the facts has occurred
since the submission of the issue to the court. Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales,
Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990). See also Entm't USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns,
Inc., 897 F.3d 786, 795 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[M]otions to reconsider exist to spare parties and
courts unnecessary appeals.”)
Here, Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with a convincing reason to
reconsider the denial of the motions for counsel. While Ms. Henderson may have been
out of work for six months following the accident in December 2022, the financial
information that she provided to the Court in September 2023—after she had gone back
1 The “Response” was not verified, meaning Ms. Henderson did not declare under penalty of perjury that
the factual allegations were true and correct (see Doc. 27; compare with Docs. 6, 10, 11, 20). See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1746 (setting forth requirements for an unsworn declaration).
Case 3:23-cv-01117-DWD Document 28 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
to work (see Doc. 10)—demonstrated that she was not indigent (see Doc. 17, p. 4). As the
Court has previously explained, it does not have any authority to recruit counsel for a
litigant who is not indigent (Doc. 17, p. 4; Doc. 25, p. 2). And it will not act as a lawyer
finding service for a litigant, like Ms. Henderson, who is able and willing to pay for an
attorney but simply cannot find one to represent her (see Doc. 25, p. 2).
Additionally, the letter regarding Mr. Williams’ monthly Social Security benefits
does not change the Court’s determination. It is just one piece of Mr. Williams’ financial
situation (see, e.g., Doc. 10). He did not provide any other information, context, or
explanation. Therefore, the Court still does not have the full picture regarding his
financial situation and cannot make a determination as to whether he is indigent and
qualifies for recruitment of counsel.
Accordingly, the “Response” (Doc. 27), construed as a motion to reconsider is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 2, 2026
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01117-DWD Document 28 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>