Jackson v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/14/2017 DENYING 23 plaintiff's MOTION to appoint counsel. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Debradre Jackson at Racine Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DEBRADRE D. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-1584-pp

ROBIN DIEBOLD, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 23)
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff has filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel. Dkt.
No. 23. He explains that he needs help getting photographs of prison common
areas, “un-redacted documents” and depositions. Id.
In a civil case, the court has discretion to recruit a lawyer for someone
who cannot afford one. Navejar v. Iyola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, the litigant must first make reasonable efforts to hire private counsel
on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff can
satisfy this requirement if he has contacted at least three attorneys (and been
turned down), by providing the court with: (1) the attorneys’ names, (2) the
addresses, (3) the date and way the plaintiff attempted to contact them, and (4)
the attorneys’ responses.
Once the plaintiff makes reasonable attempts to hire counsel, the court
decides “whether the difficulty of the case – factually and legally – exceeds the
particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it.” Navejar,
1

718 F.3d at 696 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). The court looks not only at the
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)).
The court is satisfied that the plaintiff made reasonable attempts to
secure counsel on his own. See Dkt. No. 23-1. It will not, however, appoint
counsel at this time. The plaintiff cited relevant law and facts in his complaint.
His motion to compel sought the type of documents he needs to prove his case.
The court can understand his pleadings, and he is able to communicate what
he wants clearly. Based on the plaintiff’s filings so far, the court has no reason
to believe that the plaintiff is unable to coherently present his case.
If the plaintiff seeks photographs and additional documents, he can use
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 to request them—that rule allows parties to
ask that the other side produce documents and other types of evidence, like
photographs. The plaintiff should communicate with opposing counsel, and
request the documents and other items that he wants. He asks for “unredacted documents,” but does not specify what type of documents he seeks—
he will need to tell opposing counsel exactly what he is asking for. If the
plaintiff still does not have access to the un-redacted documents after
2

conferring with opposing counsel in a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue,
he can file a motion to compel.The court will then conduct an in camera review
of the documents to determine whether the plaintiff should have access to unredacted copies of the documents. At this time, the court will deny the
plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel.
The court DENIES without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to appoint
counsel. Dkt. No. 23.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 14th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT

__________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3