Bowers v. Abele et al
ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/24/2019 DENYING 16 plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (cc: all counsel, via mail to David Bowers at Wisconsin Resource Center) (cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DAVID ELIJAH BOWERS, JR.,
Case No. 17-cv-805-pp
CHRIS ABELE, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(DKT. NO. 16)
The plaintiff filed his case in June 2017. Dkt. No. 1. The court dismissed
the case on July 21, 2017, because the plaintiff had not filed a motion to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee or paid the filing fee, and because he
had not provided the court with his new address or timely filed a form
indicating whether he consented to a magistrate judge deciding his case. Dkt.
No. 3. The court entered judgment the same day. Dkt. No. 4. The plaintiff then
asked to reinstate the case and amend his complaint. Dkt. Nos. 5, 7. He also
asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 8. And he provided
the court with his new address. Dkt. No. 9. The court allowed the plaintiff to
reinstate the case, but because he has had at least three cases dismissed
because they were frivolous or failed to state a claim, the court denied his
motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and ordered him to pay the
$400 filing fee by May 22, 2018. Dkt. No. 13. The plaintiff did not pay the filing
fee by the due date, so the court dismissed the case without prejudice the next
day. Docket No. 14.
About seven months later, on December 10, 2018, the court received the
current motion for appointment of counsel (in which the plaintiff also notified
the court that his address has changed). Docket No. 16. The motion says that
the plaintiff filed a motion “for vacancy of dismissal without prejudice under
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60,” and says that “the motion had not been adjudged in
common law or fact.” Id. at 1. He asks the court to appoint counsel “to assist
on presenting arguments.” Id. at 2.
The plaintiff is correct that he filed a motion for reinstatement under
Rule 60. See Dkt. No. 7. He is mistaken in his belief that the court did not rule
on that motion—it did, in an order it issued on May 8, 2018. Dkt. No. 13. The
court granted the motion and reinstated the plaintiff’s case, but ordered him to
pay the filing fee. The reason this case is dismissed, and closed, is because the
plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. If the plaintiff wants to pursue the claims he
made in the June 7, 2017 complaint, he must file a new complaint—a new
case—and pay the $400 filing fee for filing that case. The court will not reopen
or reinstate this case.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 24th day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Court Judge
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?