Williams v. Dittmann et al

Filing 189

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 5/5/11 denying 188 Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICKY L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 07-C-1158

BONNIE LAMB, NICOLE VARLEY,
TOM LANGENHORST, WAYNE STARBIRD,
C. HAWLEY, SARAH BOWE, and SANDY BEULEN,
Defendants,

ORDER
In an Order dated April 21, 2011, I denied plaintiff’s tenth motion to appoint counsel
in this case. Before me now is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of appointment of
counsel.
In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asserts that he has had assistance from
other inmates throughout this case and that he did not win the motion for summary judgment
to which he responded. He also submits that he has proven through test results from the
Wisconsin Resource Center that he has learning and understanding problems. Finally,
plaintiff maintains that it does not matter how long the court gives him to respond to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment because he cannot put together a response
without the assistance of counsel. He asks that the court have him tested to prove that he
cannot understand the orders or the court or other documents in this case. He also requests
a telephone conference with the court about this issue and a stay of this litigation until
counsel is appointed for him.

Plaintiff has presented no new arguments in his motion. Nor has he submitted any
newly discovered evidence or shown that I made any error of law or fact. Accordingly, his
motion will be denied. See Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th
Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int’l Fid. Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665-66 (N.D. Ill.
1982), aff’d, 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)).
Plaintiff has received the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and copies of the
rules explaining how he should respond. I also have given him additional time to respond,
until Monday, June 13, 2011. Failure to respond by that date may result in dismissal of this
action. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Docket #188) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 5th day of May, 2011.
/s
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2