East v. Minnehaha County, South Dakota et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting 17 MOTION to Amend Complaint, DISMISSING COMPLAINT IN PART AND DIRECTING SERVICE IN PART, AND denying 16 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 04/10/2017. (SAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
MINNEHAHA COUNTY, STATE OF
SOUTH DAKOTA, MIKE MILSTEAD,
JEFF GROMER, LIEUTENANT HICKS,
LIEUTENANT AXSOM, CORPORAL
THORSON, DR. KASTRE, DR.
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT,
DISMISSING COMPLAINT IN PART
AND DIRECTING SERVICE IN PART,
AND DENYING MOTION TO
HEiSLER, LINDA OSBORNE, JESSICA
HOFFMAN, NURSE TAYDRA, DENNY
KAEMINGK, DARIN YOUNG, ROBERT
DOOLEY, LIEUTENANT LOEWE,
MICHAEL JOE HANVEY, DR.
Plaintiff Donald East ("East") filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Doc. 1. East is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison in
Springfield, South Dakota. East amended his complaint once. Doc. 10, and
this Court screened his amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19ISA,
Doc. 11, dismissing it in part but allowing East's Eighth Amendment claim to
proceed- For the following reasons, this Court now grants East's motion to
amend his complaint anew, dismisses his complaint in part, directs service in
part, and denies his motion to appoint counsel.
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTi
In March of 2013, while East was incarcerated in the Minnehaha County
Jail (MCJ), he developed a blister on his toe from playing basketball. Doc. 17-1
^ 25. The blister eventually burst. Id. According to East, the resulting wound
was not treated by jail medical staff even though East repeatedly warned them
that it was getting worse. Id.
Between March and August of 2013, East's foot was examined by
Dr. Heisler, the Primary Care Physician at MCJ. Id. ^ 26. Dr. Heisler ordered
only ointment and a cotex band wrap. Id. When Dr. Litsz replaced Dr. Heisler
in August of 2013, Dr. Litsz allegedly told East his foot was infected and
requested approval for him to be seen at Avera. Id.
In August of 2013, East went to Avera for treatment of his foot. Id. ^ 27.
He was prescribed Bactrim for the infection, but by this time, the infection was
so severe that his symptoms got worse, even with the medication. Id. A doctor
at Avera allegedly told East he should have been seen in June of 2013 at the
On September 4, 2013, East had an MRl done on his foot and was
diagnosed with osteomyelitis of the fifth metatarsal and proximal fifth phalanx.
Id. T| 28. Three weeks later, he had surgery to remove the fifth toe on his right
foot. Id. Tf 29. Before leaving the hospital. East had a PlCC line put in his arm
and was given two medications to kill any remaining infections. Id. 30.
1 This Court makes no findings of fact at this point in the case. The matters set forth in
this section are taken from the factual allegations pled in East's Second Amended Complaint,
which this Court must take as true on initial screening.
East was told by nurse Amber at MCJ that he would only receive
ibuprofen and Tylenol for pain rather than hydrocodone, as the hospital had
ordered. Id. 31. East alleges that he was not allowed to shower for five days
in a row because jail staff would not give him anything to cover his PlCC line to
keep it dry in the shower. Id. Tf 32. He grieved this issue, but he was ignored.
During his incarceration at MCJ, East's IVs were manually administered
by nurse Linda Osborne. Id. T| 33. East claims that on numerous occasions,
Osborne gave him too much medicine, which caused intestinal issues and
excessive bowel movements, and she did not use gloves to administer his IVs.
34-35. Osborne and nurse Jessica Hoffman also allegedly ignored East's
complaints of severe pain. Id. Tf 36.
On October 10, 2013^ Hoffman and another nurse told East that his foot
might have to be re-stitched and that it might be infected again. Id. 38. The
same day, he saw Dr. Bipito who was worried that the PICO line was infected
and told East he may have to go to Avera to get a new one. Id. Tf 39. Nurses at
Avera allegedly told East that Osborne was administering his IVs incorrectly
and that he should come to Avera to have them administered. Id. 40.
Two days later, he was told by MCJ staff that he would not receive
further pain medication because he was refusing medication. Jd. 41. He
grieved the issue to medical staff, telling them he had refused medication
because he believed MCJ medical staff members were trying to kill him rather
than because he did not need the medication. Id. Osborne responded, denying
the allegations. Id.
Later that day, East put extra socks on his foot because it was cold. Id.
T| 42. When he told one of the private nurses at MCJ that he was having
problems keeping his foot warm, she said he needed immediate medical help.
Id. East was taken to Avera two hours later and stayed there for three days. Id.
The nerves in his lower leg allegedly had stopped working; the doctors at Avera
believed he was suffering from Raynaud's Disease. Id.
On October 15, 2013, East was seen by Dr. Litsz who prescribed Tylenol,
ibuprofen, and Gabapentin (which East refers to as Gabby Penton in his
second amended complaint). Id. 43. Dr. Litsz also requested that East receive
his IVs at Avera. Id. According to East, Osborne yelled at him later that day,
calling him a liar, saying nothing was wrong with his leg, saying she would
administer his IVs, and ordering him to stop telling lies to his doctors. Id. He
wrote a grievance to the Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Warden, telling them about
the problems he was having with jail medical staff. Id. 44. Corporal Thorson
responded, telling East that MCJ medical staff could administer his IVs. Id.
According to East, a number of problems occurred around this time with
the administering of his IVs: Osborne stored his IV pole in a place where it
could get contaminated, id. 45, East noticed his IV bag was expired, but
when he pointed this out, nurse Taydra said it was fine, id. Tf 46, East
overheard Hoffman complaining that, because East had seen the IV bags were
expired, MCJ now had to order new ones, id. T| 47, and MCJ staff began
administering his IVs in a dirty holding cell. Id. 48. East also met with
Dr. Bipito who confirmed there was a minor infection in his PICC line. Id. Tf 50.
On November 3, 2013, East had stomach pains and turned purple while
MCJ medical staff were administering his IV. Id.
52. He was taken to the
Avera Emergency Room. Id. When he was sent back to MCJ, he was put in
lockdown by Taydra, even though he continued to be ill. Id. The next day,
Dr. Litsz told East that his pain was from receiving too much medication and
not eating enough food. Id. On November 6, 2013, East woke up with blood
coming from his PICC line. Id. 53. He allegedly was not seen by medical staff
for hours, and when he was, they merely wrapped a eotex band around it and
told him to keep an eye on it. Id.
On November 7, 2013, his PICC line was removed, and he was placed in
general population. Id.
54. East found this overwhelming and asked to be
sent back to isolation, but MCJ staff denied this request. Id. A couple of days
later, he was transferred to the Jameson Annex at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary. Id. 56. During East's medical assessment before being
incarcerated at the Jameson Annex, the doctor allegedly told him that he had
Raynaud's Disease because of the mishandling of his PICC line. Id.
East alleges that he was sexually assaulted multiple times in the
Jameson Annex. Id. Tf 57. He reported this to Unit Manager Tammy Doyle and
Special Security. Id. Special Security Lieutenant Loewe told him that they could
not do anything about the assaults because they were not on camera. Id.
On June 30, 2015, East began experiencing pain in his right foot. Id.
^ 58. His foot was swollen and red. Id. He was taken to the Avera Emergency
Room, and there he was diagnosed with a cellulite infection. Id.
In September of 2015, East was still in pain. Id. 60. He had x-rays
taken of his right foot, which showed a fracture. Id. East was immediately put
in a walking boot. Id. In October of 2015, however, he saw Dr. Pederson at
Avera who allegedly told him that he had been misdiagnosed. Id. 61. His foot
was still fractured because he had been walking differently since his toe had
been removed. Id. Dr. Pederson allegedly ordered East to be put in a cast and
use a wheelchair. Id. Physician's Assistant Michael Joe Hanvey only allowed
East to use the wheelchair for long distances and forced East to use crutches
the rest of the time, allegedly saying that he did not care what Dr. Pederson
On April 13, 2016, East had surgery to remove the main joint of the big
toe on his right foot. Id. 62. He also had his bones fused together with a plate
and pins. Id.
On August 29, 2016, East filed his original complaint in this Court.
Doc. 1. This Court ordered him to amend his complaint because he failed to
name an identifiable defendant. Doc. 6. East amended his complaint. Doc. 10,
and this Court screened it, dismissing it in part and directing service. Doc. 11.
East now moves to amend his complaint for a second time. Doc. 17. He also
again moves to be appointed counsel. Doc. 16.
At this stage of the case, this Court must accept the well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444
(8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(citation omitted); Bediako v. Stein
Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, "a
pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions." Martin
V. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); Ellis v. City ofMinneapolis,
518 F. App'x 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013). Civil rights complaints cannot be .
merely conclusory. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993); Parker v.
Porter, 221 F. App'x 481, 482 (8th Cir. 2007).
A complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations . . . [but] requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do." BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). "If a plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing, dismissal is
appropriate." Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court must screen prisoner claims filed in
forma pauperis and determine whether they are (1) "frivolous, malicious, or
fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (2) seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." See also Onstad v.
Wilkinson, 534 F. App'x 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2013).
Motion to Amend Complaint
East moves to amend his eomplaint, Doc. 17, and provided a proposed
second amended complaint. Doc. 17-1. "A decision whether to allow a party to
amend her eomplaint is left to the sound discretion of the district court. . . ."
Popoalii V. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008)(citations
omitted). "A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within .. . 21 days after serving it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). "In all other
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Motions to amend should
be freely given in order to promote justice. Plymouth Cty., Iowa v. Merscorp,
Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1160 (8th Cir. 2015).
East's second amended complaint raises similar claims to those in his
original eomplaint. He appears to be attempting to cure the defects pointed out
by this Court when it dismissed a number of his claims. Although most of
those defects remain. East's second amended complaint contains much more
detail and specificity for all his claims, including the one that survives. Further,
defendants have not been served, and justice is served by granting East's
motion. Therefore, this Court grants East's motion to amend his complaint a
Screening Pursuant to § 1915A
East raises six claims in his second amended complaint. He claims that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He claims
that defendants were negligent in providing him care, admitting him, and
supervising their subordinates. He claims defendants violated his rights under
the Prison Rape Elimination Act(PREA). Finally, he claims that defendants
failed to incarcerate him in humane conditions.
East alleges that all defendants violated his constitutional rights by being
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. "[A] prison official who is
deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of a prisoner violates the prisoner's
constitutional rights." Letterman v. Does, 789 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2015). To
state an Eighth Amendment claim. East must show "a substantial risk of
serious harm to the victim," and "that the prison official was deliberately
indifferent to that risk of harm . . . ." Id. at 861-62 (citing Gordon v. Frank, 454
F.3d 858, 862 (8th Cir. 2006)). The deliberate indifference elerhent of this claim
"has two components: an actor must 'know of and disregard^ an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety.'" Id. at 862 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).
East makes a number of allegations against Osborne. Many of the
allegations concern Osborne's actions while administering his IVs. He alleges
that he was given too much medicine, too quickly. Docket 17-1
34, 37. He
also alleges that Osborne administered the IVs in an unsanitary fashion. Id.
35, 45. East alleges that nurses at MCJ and at Avera told him that Osborne
should not administer IVs in this way. Id. T|| 40, 45.
East has alleged a substantial risk of harm and deliberate indifferenee on
the part of Osborne. East was sent to the emergency room multiple times, and
Dr. Litsz allegedly told him this was because of problems caused by the
administration of his medications. Id. Tf 52. When East was screened before
being incarcerated in the Jameson Annex, the doctor allegedly told him that he
had Raynaud's Disease because of mishandling of the PICC line. Id. Tf 56.
East alleges that Osborne disregarded these possible harms. Osborne
allegedly responded to a complaint from East by saying that his PICC line was
not infected, id. t 41, even though it was. Id. 50. Osborne allegedly
disregarded East's complaints of severe pain, id. T| 36, and yelled at him, saying
that he was lying, that nothing was wrong with him, and that the there was no
problem with his IVs. Id. Tf 43. East has stated an Eighth Amendment claim of
deliberate indifference against Osborne.
East alleges that Hoffman also administered the IVs in an unsanitary
fashion and disregarded his complaints of severe pain. Id.
36, 37. The
analysis applied to Osborne's actions also applies to Hoffman's actions. East
has stated an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference against
East alleges that Dr. Heisler examined his foot between March and
August of 2013. Id. Tf 26. He alleges that Dr. Heisler ordered only ointment and
a cotex band wrap. Id. East alleges that this amounted to deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs.
East has alleged a substantial risk of serious harm. His foot needed
treatment, a need shown by the fact that after the treatment was allegedly
denied, his toe had to be removed. East also has alleged that Dr. Heisler was
deliberately indifferent to this risk by not providing him with further care.
When Dr. Litsz replaced Dr. Heisler in August 2013, she requested East be
seen at Avera. Jd. When East was seen at Avera, he was allegedly told he
should have been seen in June of 2013 at the latest. Id. Tf 27. During the time
Dr. Heisler was working at MCJ, East further alleges that a nurse told him he
needed to go to Avera, but she could not authorize it. Id. ^ 26. East has stated
an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Heisler.
Michael Joe Hanvey
East alleges that Hanvey denied him the use of a wheelchair when he
needed one. The substantial harm was clear; East already had a fractured foot
and was in a cast. Id. at 61. Dr. Pederson also allegedly ordered East to use a
wheelchair. Id. Yet, according to East, Hanvey disregarded this and forced East
to use crutches. East has stated an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate
indifference against Hanvey.
East alleges a number of incidences of mistreatment that he
characterizes as accidents. These concern his IVs and medications. Id.
40, 51. These do not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. An accident
cannot be the basis of an Eighth Amendment medieal claim because it does not
constitute deZifoerate indifference. Estellev. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976);
Champion v. Kelley, 495 F. App'x 769, 770 (8th Cir. 2012). Therefore, East fails
to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on these alleged aecidents.
Specific Constitutional Amendment
East claims that these actions violated his rights under a number of
eonstitutional amendments. Because elaims that defendants have been
deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs arise under the
Eighth Amendment, East has stated claims under that amendment. To the
extent that he seeks to reeast these claims under other amendments, he fails to
state a claim, and these claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l).
East also fails to state a elaim of deliberate indifference against any other
defendant other than those diseussed above. These defendants are discussed
further below. The Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
these other defendants are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Negligent Care and Negligent Supervision
In Counts 2, 3, and 4, East claims that defendants violated his
constitutional rights by negligently administering medical care and by
negligently supervising their employees. As explained in this Court's previous
order, negligence eannot be the basis of an Eighth Amendment claim for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Doc. 11. East has failed to
state a claim for negligent medical care or negligent supervision upon which
relief may be granted.
In Count 3, East claims that MCJ defendants violated his constitutional
rights in part by not following their own policies. "[T]here is no § 1983 liability
for violating prison policy." Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997); see also Moore v. Rowley, 126 F. App'x 759 (8th Cir. 2005). East fails to
state a claim of negligent care or negligent supervision upon which relief may
be granted, and these claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l).
East claims that Kaemingk, Dooley, Loewe, and the State of South
Dakota violated his rights under PREA by failing to respond to his complaints
of sexual assault and failing to develop and implement policies to properly
administer PREA complaints. PREA does not create a private right of action
enforceable by an individual civil litigant such as East. Woods v. Hays, No.
2;15CV13 CDP, 2015 WL 3645141, at *2 (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2015); see also
Krieg v. Steele, 599 F. App'x 231, 232 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 136 S. Ct. 238
(2015). Therefore, East fails to state a claim under PREA, and his claim is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l).
Right to Humane Conditions in Prison
In Count 6, East claims that defendants violated his right to humane
conditions in prison. He seems to be referring to paragraph 63 of his second
amended complaint in which he lists a number of alleged issues at Mike Durfee
State Prison. East does not allege any facts supporting these claims; he merely
lists issues unrelated to the rest of his complaint. East fails to state a claim of
a denial of the right to humane conditions, and his claims are dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l).
Failure to Create Policy
Counts 4, 5, and 6 raise claims against defendants Mike Milstead,
Warden Jeff Gromer, Dr. Kastre, Denny Kaemingk, Darin Young, and Robert
Dooley for failing to develop and implement policies and practices in order to
protect East's rights. Although these claims are dismissed for other reasons
discussed above. East also fails to explain how the alleged failure to develop
and implement policies and practices violated his rights. His allegations are
merely conclusory: because his rights were allegedly violated, it must have
been due to a failure of policy. Such conclusory allegations are insufficient to
state a cause of action.
Further, East claims that MCJ defendants failed to follow their own
policies. The policies are in place, according to East, but individual defendants
failed to follow them, and their supervisors are liable for these failures. But
defendants may not be held liable in a § 1983 claim based upon respondeat
superior. Williams v. Kelso, 201 F.3d 1060, 1066 (8th Cir. 2000). Therefore,
East fails to state a claim against these defendants, and his claims are
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l).
East fails to state a claim against Minnehaha County. As explained in
this Court's previous order, a county may only be held liable for a violation of
constitutional rights if the violation was caused by its customs or policies.
Crawford v. Van Buren Cty., Ark., 678 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2012)(quoting
Rynders v. Williams, 650 F.3d 1188, 1195 (8th Cir. 2011)). As discussed above.
East does not allege facts showing that the County's customs or policies were
unconstitutional. Therefore, East fails to state a claim against Minnehaha
County, and his claim is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Hicks, Axsom, and Thorson
East alleges that Hicks, Axsom, and Thorson violated his constitutional
rights. The only claim that survives screening, however, is East's Eighth
Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. As
Lieutenants and a Corporal at MCJ, these defendants have no medical
expertise to provide East with medical care, adequate or otherwise.
East only mentions Hicks as one of the individuals who decided to put
him in a holding cell to administer his IVs. This alone, because of Hicks'lack of
medical expertise, is not enough to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.
East alleges that Axsom denied his request for a cover for his PlCC line while in
the shower. This only stopped East from showering for five days. It did not stop
him from receiving medical care.
Finally, East alleges that Thorson responded to one of East's grievances
about the medical staff. Thorson told East that MCJ medical staff could
administer his IVs at the jail, and East did not have to be sent to Avera to
receive his IVs. As a staff member without medical expertise, Thorson could
rely on the medical staffs decisions concerning East's treatment. This does not
constitute deliberately indifferent by Thorson. East fails to state a claim against
Hicks, Axsom, and Thorson, and his claims are dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l).
Dr. Benjamin Aaker
East alleges that Dr. Aaker violated his constitutional rights by
misdiagnosing him. First, "Negligent misdiagnosis does not create a cognizable
claim under § 1983." McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974, 982 (8th Cir. 2009).
Second, East does not allege that Dr. Aaker is a state actor."'Only state actors
can be held liable under Section 1983.'" Carlson v. Roetzel & Andress, 552
F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir. 2008)(quoting Youngblood v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc.,
266 F.3d 851, 855 (8th Cir. 2001)). East alleges that Dr. Aaker is a Doctor at
Avera McKennan Hospital. Doc. 17-1 23. He does not explain how Dr. Aaker's
treatment was attributable to the state. Therefore, East fails to state a claim
against Dr. Aaker, and his claim is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l).
Motion to Appoint Counsel
East again moves this court to appoint him counsel. Doc. 16. "A pro se
litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a
civil case." Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). In
determining whether to appoint counsel to a pro se litigant, the court considers
the complexity of the case, the ability of the litigant to investigate the facts, the
existence of conflicting testimony, and the litigant's ability to present his claim.
Id. The facts and nature of the case have not changed since this Court denied
East's previous motion to appoint counsel. East's motion to appoint counsel is
denied at this time.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED
1. East's motion to amend (Doc. 17) is granted. The clerks office shall
refile Doc. 17-1, as East's amended complaint.
2. East's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs against Linda Osborne, Dr. Heisler, Jessica
Hoffman, and Michael Joe Hanvey survive screening.
3. The remainder of the claims in East's second,amended complaint are
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
4. Defendants Minnehaha County, State of South Dakota, Mike.
Milstead, Jeff Gromer, Lieutenant Hicks, Lieutenant Axsom, Corporal
Thorson, Dr. Kastre, Nurse Taydra , Denny Kaemingk, Darin Young,
Robert Dooley, Lieutenant Loewe, and Dr. Benjamin Aaker are
dismissed as defendants.
5. The Clerk shall send blank summons forms to East so he may cause
the summons and complaint to be served upon the remaining
6. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the second amended
complaint (Doc. 17-1), Summons, and this Order upon defendants. All
costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.
7. Defendants will serve and file an answer or responsive pleading to the
remaining claim in the second amended complaint on or before 21
days following the date of service.
8. East will serve upon defendants, or, if appearance has been entered
by counsel, upon their counsel, a copy of every further pleading or
other document submitted for consideration by the court. He will
include with the original paper to be filed with the clerk of court a
certificate stating the date and that a true and correct copy of any
document was mailed to defendants or their counsel.
9. East's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 16) is denied.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERTO A. LANGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?