Johnson v. Milwaukee County Sheriffs Department

Filing 26

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/11/2016 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 24 Motion to Substitute Proper Names for the Doe Defendants and DENYING 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The court SUBSTITUTES the name "Joy Parks" in place of "Jane Doe." (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DARRICK D. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-582-pp

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUE THE PROPER NAMES FOR THE
DOE DEFENDANTS (DKT. NO. 24) AND DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 25)
______________________________________________________________________________
Darrick Johnson, an inmate at the Milwaukee County House of
Corrections, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, which the court
screened on May 11, 2015. Dkt. No. 14. In that order, the court instructed the
plaintiff to conduct limited discovery to identify the proper names of the Doe
defendants listed in the plaintiff’s complaint. On December 23, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a motion to substitute the proper names for the Doe defendants.
Dkt. No. 24.
In its May 11, 2015 screening order, the court allowed the plaintiff to
proceed on his claims against Jane Doe #2, the releasing officer; John Doe #2,
the on-duty officer; Jane Doe #3, the social worker; and John/Jane Doe #4, the
supervising officer(s). Dkt. No. 14 at 6. These are the only defendants against
whom the plaintiff has stated a claim. In his motion to substitute, the plaintiff

identifies Jane Doe #3, the social worker, as Joy Parks. Dkt. No. 24. The court
grants the plaintiff’s motion to substitute Joy Parks for Jane Doe #3.
However, the court denies the plaintiff’s motion with regard to Jane Doe
#2, John Doe #2, and John/Jane Doe #4. In his motion, the plaintiff provides a
list of nine names, whom he characterizes as “Releasing officer and supervising
officer, correction officers.” Dkt. No. 24 at 1. It is unclear to the court which
name the plaintiff intends to substitute for which Doe defendant. The plaintiff
must specify the proper name of Jane Doe #2 (the releasing officer), the proper
name of John Doe #2 (the on-duty officer), and the proper name(s) of
John/Jane Doe #4 (the supervising officers) by January 25, 2016. The court
will not guess which name goes with which position, and the defendants are
entitled to know which allegations are made against each of them specifically.
Further, the plaintiff does not state claims against the “commander of
the jail” or the officers that generally “worked in the pod in which the plaintiff
was housed.” Dkt. No. 24. The court is unsure why the plaintiff included these
individuals in his motion to substitute, but to the extent the plaintiff is asking
to add these people as new defendants, the court denies his request.
On December 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to
appoint counsel to represent him. Dkt. No. 25. The plaintiff states that he lacks
the funds to hire counsel on his own, and says that, although he has spoken to
a number of attorneys, they all have declined to take his case. Id.
A court has discretion in a civil case to decide whether to recruit a lawyer
for someone who cannot afford one. Navejar v. Iyola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th
2 

Cir. 2013); 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1); Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706
F.3d 864, 866-67 (7th Cir. 2013). A person must make a reasonable effort to
hire private counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir.
2007). In this district, to demonstrate a “reasonable effort,” a person must tell
the court the names of at least three attorneys who he asked to represent him
and provide the dates of the contact and, if available, the attorney’s response.
After a plaintiff demonstrates he has made a reasonable attempt to hire
counsel, the court will then decide “whether the difficulty of the case – factually
and legally – exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to
coherently present it.” Navejar, 718 F.3d at 696 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655).
To decide that, the court looks, not only at a plaintiff’s ability to try his case,
but also at his ability to perform other “tasks that normally attend litigation,”
such as “evidence gathering” and “preparing and responding to motions.” Id.
“[D]eciding whether to recruit counsel ‘is a difficult decision: Almost everyone
would benefit from having a lawyer, but there are too many indigent litigants
and too few lawyers willing and able to volunteer for these cases.’” Henderson
v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d 559, 564 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Olson v. Morgan, 750
F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014)).
The plaintiff appears to have satisfied the first step in the process set
forth above. But there are two steps to the process, and the second step
requires the court to determine whether the case is so complex that the
plaintiff cannot represent himself at this stage. The court concludes that the
plaintiff’s claims are not complex; they relate to how he was treated by the
3 

defendants and the conditions of his confinement. The plaintiff’s claims turn
on his personal knowledge and, perhaps, reports or other documents that
substantiate the parties’ assertions. The plaintiff has presented his allegations
in a manner that the court can understand; he has conducted limited discovery
to identify the names of unidentified Doe defendants; and he has followed the
instructions of this court. The court concludes that the plaintiff is competent to
handle the initial stages of litigation on his own. At this point, all the plaintiff
has to do is specifically indicate which of the names he listed belongs with
which position of the Doe defendants he listed in the original complaint. The
plaintiff has the information and ability to do this on his own.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel
(Dkt. No. 25).
The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiff’s motion
asking the court to substitute the proper names for the Doe Defendants (Dkt.
No. 24). The court ORDERS the clerk of court to revise the caption of this case
to reflect that the proper name of Jane Doe (Social Worker) is Joy Parks.
The court further ORDERS the plaintiff to file a motion to substitute the
proper names for the remaining Doe defendants, and to specifically identify
each Doe defendant, no later than Monday, January 25, 2016. If the plaintiff
does not specifically identify the remaining Doe defendants by the deadline, the
court may dismiss his claims against those defendants for the failure to
prosecute, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 41(c).

4 

The court further ORDERS that pursuant to the informal service
agreement between Milwaukee County and this court, the clerk of court will
electronically send copies of the plaintiff’s complaint and this order to
Milwaukee County for service on Joy Parks.
The court also ORDERS that, pursuant to the informal service agreement
between Milwaukee County and this court, Joy Parks shall file a responsive
pleading to the complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this
order.
Dated in Milwaukee this 11th day of January, 2016.

5