Hughes v. Taycheedah Correctional Institution et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/30/2018. 21 Plaintiff's MOTION to dismiss without prejudice GRANTED. Case DISMISSED. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Anna Marie Hughes at Robert Ellsworth Correctional Center)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
ANNA MARIE HUGHES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-587-pp

LACEY L. SCHAFER,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAITNIFF’S MOTION
TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DKT. NO. 21)
______________________________________________________________________________
On August 7, 2017, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed on a
deliberate indifference claim against the defendant. Dkt. No. 8. About a week
after the defendant filed her answer, the court received from the plaintiff a
motion, asking the court to recruit counsel to represent her on a volunteer
basis. Dkt. No. 14. The court denied the motion, because the plaintiff had not
demonstrated that she had attempted to find counsel on her own before she
filed the motion. Dkt. No. 16. The court also found, based on the plaintiff’s
filings and the issues in the case, that the plaintiff was capable of representing
herself through the briefing of summary judgment. Id. The court told the
plaintiff that she could renew her request for appointment of counsel if things
changed to such a degree that she did not think she could present her case on
her own. Id.
On January 17, 2018, the defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, based on ther assertion that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust her
1

administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit. Dkt. No. 17. About a
week later, the court received another motion from the plaintiff, this one asking
the court to dismiss the case without prejudice. Dkt. No. 21. The plaintiff
stated that, because the court had declined to recruit counsel to represent her,
the court was “denying the plaintiff of a fundamentally fair litigation . . . .” Id.
The plaintiff asked the court to either dismiss the case without prejudice or
“provide a continuance until counsel is appointed.” Id. The following day, the
defendant responded to the motion, indicating that she did not oppose the
plaintiff’s request to dismiss the case. Dkt. No. 22.
The court reminds the plaintiff that, in a civil case, unlike in a criminal
case, the court has discretion to decide whether to recruit an attorney for
someone who cannot 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). Neither the plaintiff nor any other civil litigant is
entitled to a court-appointed an attorney under the Constitution. The court
does not have funds to pay the fees for court-appointed civil attorneys; it relies
on volunteer lawyers, and there aren’t nearly as many volunteer lawyers as
there are plaintiffs who can’t afford lawyers.
Despite the fact that the court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to
provide some proof that she’d tried to find a lawyer on her own, but had been
unsuccessful, the plaintiff has not provided that proof. Nor has she presented
any new information or evidence explaining why she is not capable of
representing herself at this stage. There is no basis for the court to stay the
2

litigation until the court appoints a lawyer, because even if the plaintiff were to
show that she’d tried to find a lawyer on her own, the court would not do so
until the plaintiff had demonstrated that the case had reached a stage where it
was too complex for her to handle herself.
The court will, however, grant the plaintiff’s alternate request to dismiss
the case without prejudice. This means that the plaintiff can re-file her case at
a later date, as long as it is not barred by a statute of limitations.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to stay the case and recruit
counsel to represent her. Dkt. No. 21. The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion
to dismiss this case without prejudice. Dkt. No. 21.
The court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The clerk will enter judgment accordingly.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 30th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT
__________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3