Hanson v. Brey et al

Filing 98

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/4/16 that plaintiffs request for counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further ordering defendants to respond to plaintiffs motion to compel within fourteen days of the entry of this order and also indicate whether they believe this case can be resolved through settlement. Further ordering that plaintiff's reply to defendants response is due within seven days of receiving their response. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff)(dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________
DANIEL L. HANSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-1024

SEAN M. VAN ERMAN and
ROBERT AMUNDSON,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff Daniel Hanson, a Wisconsin state prisoner, is representing himself. On
May 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. I note that discovery closed on June 3,
2016, and that the parties may, if they so choose, file dispositive motions by July 5,
2016. I have granted multiple requests by plaintiff to extend these deadlines, and I have
already cautioned him that further extensions are unlikely. With that in mind and in an
effort to resolve this motion quickly, I am ordering defendants to file a response to
plaintiff’s motion within fourteen days of the entry of this order. Plaintiff may file a reply
brief in support of his motion within seven days of receiving defendants’ response.
Second, plaintiff indicates that he is willing to discuss settlement with defendants.
I have found that mediation is generally successful only when both parties agree that
resolution through settlement may be possible. To that end, when defendants respond
to plaintiff’s motion to compel, they should also indicate whether they would be
interested in having this case randomly assigned to a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the
limited purpose of mediation. Should the defendants agree that this case could possibly

be resolved through settlement, I will recruit counsel to represent plaintiff for the limited
purpose of assisting him in the mediation.
Finally, included in plaintiff’s motion to compel was a request that I recruit
counsel to represent him.

Plaintiff made a similar request before.

At that time, I

explained that I have discretion to recruit counsel to represent a litigant who is unable to
afford one in a civil case. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1); Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864, 866-67 (7th Cir.
2013). Once a plaintiff demonstrates he has made a reasonable attempt to secure
counsel on his own, I examine "whether the difficulty of the case–factually and legally–
exceeds the particular plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to coherently present it."
Navejar, 781 F.3d at 696 (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007). This
inquiry focuses not only on a plaintiff's ability to try his case, but also includes other
"tasks that normally attend litigation" such as "evidence gathering" and "preparing and
responding to motions." Id.
I previously expressed my belief that the difficulty of this case does not exceed
plaintiff’s capacity to coherently present it. Since that time, four defendants have been
dismissed. The claims against the remaining two defendants, who are police officers,
are not complex. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has the capacity to present his
arguments and to respond to defendants’ arguments. Should defendants file a motion
for summary judgment, plaintiff may support his version of the events with an affidavit,
unsworn declaration (see 28 U.S.C. §1746), or any documents he obtained in
discovery.

2

Plaintiff complains about his limited access to the library; however, as already
noted, plaintiff’s remaining claims are straightforward, so even the limited time plaintiff
states he has appears to be adequate. I conclude that, at this stage in the litigation,
plaintiff is capable of proceeding without counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for counsel is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s motion to
compel within fourteen days of the entry of this order.

They should also indicate

whether they believe this case can be resolved through settlement.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that plaintiff may reply to defendants’ response within
seven days of receiving their response.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 4th day of June, 2016.

s/ Lynn Adelman
______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3