Hoskins v. Waukesha County Jail Administration et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Order for Help; denying 29 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Michael Hoskins) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MICHAEL S. HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-C-413

ANGELA WOLLENHAUPT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Hoskins, an inmate currently serving a state prison sentence at Waupun
Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that the defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was in custody at the Waukesha County
Jail. This matter comes before the court on two motions by Hoskins, one seeking appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 29) and the other seeking general assistance with the litigation process (ECF
No. 28). The motion for general assistance asserts that his social worker has not assisted him with
viewing video of the alleged incident, that he has limited access to the prison’s law library, and that
he has poor relationships with the correctional officers at the prison, who he alleges have interfered
with his legal materials.
Both motions will be denied. At a telephone conference on July 3, 2018, the court explained
to Hoskins, among other things, that he should send a written interrogatory to Defendants Angela
Wollenhaupt and Michael Giese at the Waukesha County Jail asking for the names of the officers
who were involved in the alleged incident. ECF No. 26. At that hearing, the court also denied
without prejudice Hoskins’ motion to appoint counsel. Id. In the two weeks since the hearing,

Hoskins’ circumstances have not changed sufficiently for the court to reconsider its decision
declining to appoint counsel at this time. The court has provided Hoskins with clear instructions
regarding the appropriate steps for him to take to proceed in this case, and a telephone status
conference in this matter is already set for September 7, 2018. ECF No. 27. At that conference, the
court will assess the status of the case, such as whether additional measures need to be taken to
provide Hoskins with access to the video. For now, Hoskins should send Wollenhaupt and Giese
written interrogatories asking for the names of the officers involved in the alleged incident.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hoskins’ motion for litigation assistance (ECF
No. 28) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hoskins’ motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 29) is
DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of July, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2