Castellano v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 8/15/2017: DENYING 35 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. (cc: all counsel, via mail to John J. Castellano at Racine Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOHN J. CASTELLANO,

v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-CV-1248-JPS-JPS

JENNIFER SPOTTS,
Defendant.

ORDER

The Court addresses two pending motions by Plaintiff. The first is
his July 11, 2017 motion to compel. (Docket #35). Plaintiff requests that
Defendant produce a psychological evaluation conducted on him in
September 2000. Id. Defendant states that the document has been mailed to
him. (Docket #37). Plaintiff further requests some group therapy notes
allegedly produced by Defendant, but she states that if they existed, they
were destroyed long ago. Id. Because the subjects of Plaintiff’s motion to
compel have been addressed, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff’s second motion, filed on August 2, 2017, seeks appointment
of counsel (and is his second request for the same). (Docket #41). Under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the “court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel.” The Court should seek counsel to
represent the plaintiff if the plaintiff: (1) has made reasonable attempts to
secure counsel; and (2) “‘the difficulty of the case—factually and legally—
exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently
present it.’” Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Pruitt
v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc)).

As the Court has already informed Plaintiff, it will not consider any
motions for appointment of counsel until the discovery period closes on
September 1, 2017. (Docket #20 at 5-6). The motion would be denied on its
merits, in any event. As to the first Pruitt element, Plaintiff avers that he has
sought representation from multiple lawyers. (Docket #41 at 4-5).
As to the difficulty of the case, Plaintiff’s argument is largely
premised on the idea that a lawyer would do a better job than him. Id. at 5.
The Seventh Circuit has rejected this sort of reasoning. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at
655. Further, any “difficulty” in this case is almost entirely factual, not legal,
and Plaintiff’s voluminous filings reveal that he has a complete grasp of the
facts he believes are relevant to this action. (Docket #41 at 1-2). Next,
Plaintiff seems to suggest that the Court found some merit in this case by
allowing him to proceed past the screening stage. Id. at 5. It has not; whether
a case is meritorious is not the Court’s inquiry upon screening. Finally, as
stated in Plaintiff’s motion and an affidavit supporting it, Plaintiff
complains of his indigence. Id.; (Docket #40 at 2). As the Court previously
explained, “if a prisoner concludes that ‘the limitations on his funds prevent
him from prosecuting [a] case with the full vigor he wishes to prosecute it,
he is free to choose to dismiss it voluntarily and bring it at a later date.’”
(Docket #27 at 2) (quoting Williams v. Berge, No. 02-CV-10, 2002 WL
32350026, at *8 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2002)). Plaintiff’s second motion for
appointment of counsel will, therefore, be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket #35) be
and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment
of counsel (Docket #41) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Page 2 of 3

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3