Allgood v. Castillo et al
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/8/2017 DENYING without prejudice: 18 , 19 Plaintiff's Motions to Reconsider Order Denying Appointment of Counsel and 24 , 25 Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Jamonte Allgood at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMONTE ALLGOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16‐CV‐1576‐JPS
DR. MARCELO CASTILLO and
RONALD J. EDWARDS,
ORDER
Defendants.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, brings this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s recent motions
appointment of counsel. (Docket #18, #19, #24, and #25). These motions
come after the Court denied Plaintiff’s initial motion for appointment of
counsel at screening. See (Docket #15). In the instant motions, Plaintiff
claims he needs counsel appointed for him because he has a long history
of mental illness. To substantiate this claim, he cites a June 18, 2015 report
from the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services which reflects
that Plaintiff “has a long history of mental illness” and has been
hospitalized for his mental disorders multiple times. (Docket #20‐1 at 2;
Docket #24‐1 at 1–2). Additionally, he asserts that he has had difficulty
finding his own attorney because prison officials will not let him use the
law library to search for one.
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied at this early stage in the case. As
a civil litigant, Plaintiff has no automatic right to court‐appointed counsel.
Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1997). However, 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: (1) he 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. banc 2007)). The Seventh Circuit
has emphasized that “[t]he question is not whether a lawyer would
present the case more effectively than the pro se plaintiff; ‘if that were the
test, district judges would be required to request counsel for every
indigent litigant.’” Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655 (quoting Johnson v. Doughty, 433
F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation omitted). Instead,
“[t]he question is whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his
own claims, given their degree of difficulty, and this includes the tasks
that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and
responding to motions and other court filings, and trial.” Id.
Plaintiff’s request fails on the first element, since he provides no
evidence whatsoever that he has made efforts to seek out representation
on his own. Russell v. Bukowski, 608 F. App’x 426, 428 (7th Cir. 2015). All he
offers in this regard is an unsubstantiated, unsworn claim that he has been
prevented from searching for an attorney. If he is indeed being actively
and inappropriately denied the ability to look for his own counsel, he
Page 2 of 4
should raise those concerns with prison officials first, for they are in a
better position to assess Plaintiff’s circumstances and provide immediate
relief.
Moreover, even if the Court credited Plaintiff’s assertion that he has
been unable to search for counsel, he fails to show that his alleged mental
illness precludes from prosecuting this case on his own. First, the report
he cites is nearly two years old and does not necessarily reflect Plaintiff’s
current mental health condition. Second, the report states that Plaintiff
was able to stabilize rapidly after his latest short psychotic episode in
April 2015, suggesting that his mental disorders are not wholly disabling.1
Finally, although Plaintiff cites Hamilton v. Leavy, 117 F.3d 742, 749 (3d Cir.
1997), for the proposition that an inmate with a history of mental
disorders must have counsel appointed for him, the Seventh Circuit has
embraced no such categorical rule, see Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 761
(7th Cir. 2010). Rather, considering all of the attendant facts and
circumstances, the Court finds that despite Plaintiff’s suggestion that he
cannot litigate this matter himself, his submissions thus far show that he
can cogently present evidence and argument in support of his positions.
Furthermore, while Plaintiff’s claims implicate medical topics, they are
fairly straightforward, since they ask only whether there was a reason for
his medication to be discontinued and whether he was provided
prescribed medication. See Henderson v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d 559, 565 (7th Cir.
In addition to the report, Plaintiff submitted a host of other documents in
his latest filings. See (Docket #24‐1 and #25‐1). Other than the June 2015 report,
the Court, having reviewed these documents, finds that they are not relevant to
Plaintiff’s mental health condition or his ability to litigate.
1
Page 3 of 4
2014). Thus, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted
at this time.2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of
counsel (Docket #18, #19, #24, and #25) be and the same are hereby
DENIED without prejudice.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff also raises a concern about the deadline for submitting an
amended complaint. (Docket #19 at 1). That deadline is set in a scheduling order
to be issued contemporaneously with this Order. If Plaintiff cannot meet the
deadline and believes that circumstances warrant an extension, he may seek such
an extension by motion. The Court reminds him, however, that this branch of the
Court rarely entertains requests for extension of time.
2
Page 4 of 4
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?