Strickland v. Godinez et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 26 Objection (construed as a Motion for Reconsideration); DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 27 Motion; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 28 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 10/31/14. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIK C. STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
S. A. GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-962-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Reconsideration (entitled “Objection to
Magistrate’s Denial for Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Council [sic]”) (Doc. 26), the
Motion to Address the Court (Doc. 27), and the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 28) filed by Plaintiff on October 27, 2014.
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Plaintiff represents that he received

assistance in filing his Complaint from another inmate who was recently transferred from
Lawrence Correctional Center on October 10, 2014, that the issues in this mater are complex, and
that he only is allowed limited access to the law library. Plaintiff repeats that he has no legal
training, that he will be required to conduct a number of depositions and that he will require expert
witnesses. While the Court is mindful that Plaintiff has no legal training and that his incarceration
will hamper his ability to prosecute this matter, his situation is no different from other inmates who
are attempting to secure their civil rights. Plaintiff appears competent and able to ask for
particular relief, he seems capable of researching issues and presenting case authority to the Court
(without the assistance of another inmate), and appears capable of prosecuting this matter. If
expert testimony is required and if Plaintiff will have substantial problems conducting discovery,
Page 1 of 2

then the Court may reconsider recruiting counsel. However, at this stage of the litigation, in light
of Plaintiff’s aptitude, counsel will not be recruited.
In Plaintiff’s next Motion, to address the Court, Plaintiff discusses the pages missing from
his original complaint and the necessity of filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff also seeks leave
to file an amended complaint, received by the Court on October 28, 2014. Both Motions are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Currently pending before the Court is a Motion to

Reconsider an Order entered by Judge Rosenstengel screening Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc.
8). Once that Motion is considered by the District Court, Plaintiff may refile his Motion to
Amend the Complaint if necessary. If Plaintiff refiles that Motion, it is unnecessary to resend the
proposed amended complaint, unless Plaintiff seeks to make any additions to the document
already provided to the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 31, 2014

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

2