Daugherty v. Godinez et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING 33 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel ; DENYING 34 Motion for Leave to File; DENYING 43 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/18/15. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
RICHARD HARRINGTON and KEVIN B.)
)
PAGE,
)
)
Defendants.
KENNETH JAMES DAUGHERTY,

Case No. 3:14-cv-876-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff
on June 4, 2015 (Doc. 33), the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on
June 4, 2015 (Doc. 34), and the Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on August 11, 2105 (Doc. 43).
All motions are DENIED.
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel
On March 24, 2015 (Doc. 24), this Court denied without prejudice Plain tiff’s first
motion for recruitment of counsel because, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s blindness in one eye, he
appeared capable of litigating this matter. Plaintiff now seeks recruitment of counsel because he
believes that the law library at Stateville Correctional Center does not have necessary legal
materials including the United States Supreme Court Reporter. In particular, Plaintiff states that
he has been unable to conduct legal research because the law library does not have the books
containing various cases, including Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, (1974) and does not have
copies of the F.2d Reporters (containing opinions from the United States Courts of Appeal).
Plaintiff has also previously indicated that he has had inadequate time to conduct research in the

Page 1 of 3

library.
As noted in this Court’s previous Order, the Court must “take account of all [relevant]
evidence in the record” and determine whether Plaintiff has the capacity to litigate this matter
without the assistance of counsel. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff
represents that he does not have access to certain case authority cited by the District Court.
However, in his motion for reconsideration (Doc. 25, filed on April 3, 2015) and his proposed
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff cites to Wolff and various other Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals cases to support his claim. Thus, the Court finds suspect his representation that he does
not have access to case reporters. While the Court is not familiar with the law library at Stateville
Correctional Center, the Court has had an opportunity to review Plaintiff’s pleadings and filings.
Plaintiff appears competent to try this matter without counsel. To the extent that Plaintiff requires
additional time to conduct legal research or acquire material not available at the prison law library,
he may seek reasonable extensions of time. This motion is accordingly DENIED.
Motion to Amend
In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to stay this matter pending appointment of counsel and
reconsideration of the merits review Order issued on February 25, 2015 (Doc. 17). The proposed
amended “pleading” submitted by Plaintiff merely contains arguments made in a motion to
reconsider filed on April 3, 2015 (Doc. 25). The proposed “pleading,” besides containing a
caption, does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 – there is no statement of
jurisdiction and no “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Rather, Plaintiff includes extraneous arguments and statements that are unrelated to any
claim for relief. This motion is accordingly DENIED.

Page 2 of 3

Motion to Compel
Plaintiff states that he has discovered that a number of documents are “fraudulent and
being contested” and that Defendants are refusing to identify John and Jane Doe Defendants. It is
unclear from the Motion what discovery requests or responses Plaintiff is referring to or whether
he is making general observations about documents he has received as initial disclosures. If
Plaintiff has served a discovery request (interrogatories or requests to produce) and responses to
those requests are not consistent with the Federal Rules, he may file a motion to compel provided
he also attach a copy of the discovery requests and responses. Plaintiff is further informed that
there is no Jane or John Doe Defendant in this matter for which discovery is owed. Again, any
future Motion to Compel must include a copy of the discovery request and the response. This
Motion is accordingly DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 18, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3