JONES v. RUOFF et al

Filing 90

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND RENEWED MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE WITH RECRUITING COUNSEL - This matter is before the Court on several Motions filed by Plaintiff Frederick D. Jones ("Jones"). The claims th at are proceeding in this action are federal claims of false arrest, unlawful search, and malicious prosecution arising under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the denial of equal protection claim arising under the Fourtee nth Amendment, and a state law claim of perjury. The Court will address each motion in turn. The defendants shall tender a proposed protective order within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Entry. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 75 is GRANTED with the limitation that Jones shall be required to comply with a protective order, to be issued. The Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions based on the Defendants' position taken on his request for copies of various police departm ent policies 84 is DENIED as meritless. Jones Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel 80 is DENIED for the present. The Court will, however, be alert to the possibility of recruiting representation for Jones at trial or at other points in the case where his incarceration and pro se status would make it particularly difficult for Jones to proceed without representation. The Court will also be alert to the possibility of assisting with recruiting counsel should the matter proceed to trial in which the assistance of counsel would be a benefit to both Jones and the Court. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/9/2016. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
FREDERICK D. JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CLINTON RUOFF Officer,
EDGELL Officer,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-cv-00028-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND
RENEWED MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE WITH RECRUITING COUNSEL
This matter is before the Court on several Motions filed by Plaintiff Frederick D. Jones
(“Jones”). The claims that are proceeding in this action are federal claims of false arrest,
unlawful search, and malicious prosecution arising under the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and the denial of equal protection claim arising under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and a state law claim of perjury. The Court will address each motion in turn.
I. Motion to Compel
Jones’s Motion to Compel, [Filing No. 75] filed on July 13, 2016, alleges that the
Defendants have refused to provide him with a copy of the New Albany Police Department
policies regarding inventory of impoundment vehicles and warrantless searches, and the plain
view policy. The Defendants object to releasing the report on the grounds that 1) the plaintiff did
not serve a written formal request, and 2) the documents sought are not relevant and would not
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Jones alleges that he sent his request in a letter
dated May 28, 2016, however, neither party has submitted a copy of the request for the Court’s
review. Absent a copy of the request, the Court cannot discern whether the form of the request

was adequate. The Court prefers to deal with the request on the merits, and therefore, the
Defendants’ first objection is overruled.
The Defendants’ second objection is also overruled. Although Jones is reminded that
any alleged violation of police department policy or practice will not automatically prove his
constitutional claims, the Court finds that the policies requested could reasonably lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Jones Motion to Compel is granted. The
Defendants’ request to limit the dissemination of the operating procedures to only the Plaintiff is
granted. The defendants shall tender a proposed protective order within fourteen (14) days of
the issuance of this Entry.
The Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Filing No. 75] is GRANTED with the limitation that
Jones shall be required to comply with a protective order, to be issued.
II. Motion for Sanctions
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions based on the Defendants’ position taken on his
request for copies of various police department policies [Filing No. 84] is DENIED as meritless.
The Defendants’ objection to the discovery request was not frivolous or vexatious. Litigation by
its very nature brings out disagreements between the parties. Nothing about the Defendants’
response to the discovery request and motion to compel warrants any type of sanction.
III. Renewed Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel
The Court has considered the plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel.
[Filing No. 80]. “When confronted with a request . . . for pro bono counsel, the district court is
to make the following inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain
counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the
case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,

654-655 (7th Cir. 2007). As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, “imprisonment only exacerbates
the already substantial difficulties that all pro se litigants face. But Congress hasn't provided
lawyers for indigent prisoners; instead it gave district courts discretion to ask lawyers to
volunteer their services in some cases.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014).
Jones reports that he graduated from high school, can read and write, and has litigated
this case and several others without assistance from anyone else. He has contacted five (5)
attorneys but has not succeeded in recruiting counsel. He should continue those efforts because
in light of his ability to express his claims, conduct discovery, seek relief in the form of
numerous motions, and respond appropriately to Court orders, Jones has demonstrated that for
now, he is able to litigate this action on his own.
Jones Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel [Filing No. 80] is DENIED for the
present. The Court will, however, be alert to the possibility of recruiting representation for Jones
at trial or at other points in the case where his incarceration and pro se status would make it
particularly difficult for Jones to proceed without representation. The Court will also be alert to
the possibility of assisting with recruiting counsel should the matter proceed to trial in which the
assistance of counsel would be a benefit to both Jones and the Court.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/9/2016
Distribution:
FREDERICK D. JONES, 99863
FLOYD COUNTY JAIL
Inmate/Mail Parcels
P.O. Box 1406
New Albany, IN 47150
Electronically registered counsel