Menting v. Humphreys et al
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 10/25/2017: DENYING 28 and 34 Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel and DENYING 34 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Party. (cc: all counsel, via mail to William J. Menting at Jackson Correctional Institution) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIAM J. MENTING,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-CV-1540-JPS
v.
ORDER
BRIAN R. SCHMIDT,
Defendant.
Before the Court are two motions filed by the plaintiff, William J.
Menting (“Menting”). First, Menting has renewed his request, in two
separate motions, that the Court appoint an attorney for him. (Docket #28
and #34).1 The Court has already considered and denied two such motions
from Menting. See (Docket #8 and #12). As noted in the Courts’ previous
orders, 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)). Menting
asserts that his mental and physical disabilities prevent him from
competently litigating this case, see (Docket #28 at 1-2), and that he cannot
Menting’s motion filed on May 1, 2017, (Docket #28), is unsigned, and for
that reason alone the Court could strike it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
1
understand the many documents the defendant has produced to him in this
case, see (Docket #34). The Court previously found that this case does not
exceed the plaintiff’s capacity to present it, and nothing has changed in the
interim to upset that conclusion. The Court will deny Menting’s motions
for the appointment of counsel.
Next, Menting filed a motion to amend his complaint to add a party.
(Docket #34). He states that he wishes to name as a defendant Sgt. Schuette
(“Schuette”) “due to the defendant’s attorneys pointing out that Sgt.
Schuette was also deliberately indifferent to me . . . . I forgot about him . . .
due to my TBI [traumatic brain injury].” Id. Menting cites to exhibits “A009,” “A-11,” and “A-13” in support of his motion but does not attach any
exhibits. Id. Defendant Brian Schmidt, who opposes Menting’s motion,
explains that the document to which Menting refers is an inmate grievance
that Menting filed while incarcerated at Kettle Moraine Correctional
Institution alleging that Schuette did not bring him a lunch tray on January
29, 2015. See (Docket #36 at 2).
The Court will deny Menting’s motion to amend his complaint.
Menting’s motion was filed three months after the Court’s deadline for the
amendment of pleadings. See (Docket #18 at 1). Although the Court may
grant leave to amend after the period for amendment has expired, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a), leave is not warranted in this case. Beyond the citation to
an exhibit that was not attached to his motion, Menting has not provided a
factual basis for his proposed claim against Schuette that would allow the
Court to determine whether the claim would survive the Court’s screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Further, it appears Menting knew, at the
time he filed his complaint, whatever facts would underlie his claim against
Schuette; those facts were apparently included in an inmate grievance.
Page 2 of 3
Allowing Menting at this late stage to add a new defendant who he could
have named from the start would serve only to unduly delay the resolution
of this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Menting’s motions for the appointment of
counsel (Docket #28 and #34) be and the same are hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Menting’s motion to amend his
complaint to add a party (Docket #34) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?