Armstrong v. Krupiczowicz

Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion for post-judgment relief in section 1983 action alleging that he was wrongfully arrested and prosecuted for violating Ill. Sex Offender Registration Act, where plaintiff asserted that defendants-police officers and others knew at time of plaintiff’s arrest that he was not required to register as sex offender and had concealed exculpatory evidence to make it appear as though he was required to register. While Dist. Ct. found that pro se plaintiff had failed to plead viable cause of action when denying post-judgment motion, plaintiff had requested recruitment of counsel, and Dist. Ct. had failed to apply legal standards under Pruitt, 503 F.3d 647, when considering plaintiff’s request for recruitment of counsel that required Dist. Ct. to determine whether plaintiff had made reasonable attempt to obtain counsel and whether plaintiff appeared competent to litigate case himself. As such, Dist. Ct. could not act on plaintiff’s post-judgment motion without considering his request for recruitment of counsel, especially where facts in plaintiff’s amended complaint suggested at least two possible bases for relief.