Williams v. Mikutis et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting in part re 38 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Travis Delaney Williams. The court will recruit an attorney for the limited purpose of helping plaintiff identify the real names of the Doe defendants. Discovery due by 8/21/2018, Motions due by 9/21/2018. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Travis Williams)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TRAVIS DELANEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-C-1319

KURT MIKUTIS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff Travis Delaney Williams filed a motion asking the court to recruit counsel to
represent him on a volunteer basis. He asserts that he has a serious mental illness that interferes with
his ability to present his case. He also explains that, despite his efforts, he has been unable to obtain
the information he needs to identify the Doe defendants.
In a civil case, the court has the discretion to recruit counsel for individuals who are unable
to afford one. Navejar v. Iyola, 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). First, a plaintiff must make
reasonable efforts to hire counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007).
After a plaintiff demonstrates that he has made those efforts, the court must 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). 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)).
Williams satisfies the first Pruitt requirement: He has made a reasonable effort to hire
counsel on his own. With regard to Williams’ capacity to present his case, the court continues to
believe that he has a good understanding of the relevant legal issues and he has the skills necessary
to communicate with the defendants and the court. Williams is an experienced litigant; he is familiar
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he is able to locate relevant case law, and he
appropriately applies case law to the facts of his case. Although Williams has been diagnosed with
mental health issues for which he takes medication, the court has observed nothing that indicates
that those circumstances interfere with his ability to coherently present his case.
That said, the court acknowledges the obstacles Williams faces in identifying the real names
of the Doe defendants. As Williams notes, he is no longer housed at the institution where those
defendants work or worked, and the named defendants have indicated that they do not have
information that will enable Williams to identify the Does’ real names. Accordingly, the court will
recruit counsel for the limited purpose of assisting Williams with identifying the real names of the
Doe defendants. The court will extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines by sixty days
to allow sufficient time for their identification. The court will consider further adjustments to those
deadlines as needed or as requested by the parties. The court believes that, once identified, Williams
has the capacity and skills to engage in discovery with those defendants.

2

Williams also mentions that he has been unable to obtain video evidence from the named
defendants. When discovery disputes such as this one arises, Civil L.R. 37 requires the parties to
confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute without the court’s involvement. If the
parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally, Williams may file a motion to compel. The
court cautions Williams to include in his motion a certification describing his attempts to resolve
the dispute and an explanation as to why the parties were unable to do so without the court’s
involvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF
No. 38) is GRANTED in part. The court will recruit an attorney for the limited purpose of helping
plaintiff identify the real names of the Doe defendants. Once the court finds an attorney, the court
will notify plaintiff so that he may consent to the attorney’s limited representation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery deadline is EXTENDED to August 21,
2018, and the dispositive motion deadline is EXTENDED to September 21, 2018.
Signed in Green Bay, Wisconsin, this 11th day of May 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3