Lampley v. Latour et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/21/2018. 26 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration DENIED. 26 Plaintiff's motion for extension of deadlines GRANTED; discovery now due 3/29/2019; dispositive motions now due 4/30/2019. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Steven Lampley at Green Bay Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
STEVEN LAMPLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-1132-pp

BRADY LATOUR, KATHY LEMENS,
and JOCELYN JOHNSON,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 26), GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 26), AND AMENDING THE SCHEDULING
ORDER DEADLINES
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 11,
2018 order denying without prejudice his third motion to appoint counsel. Dkt.
No. 26. The court will deny the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, but it will
grant his request for an extension of the scheduling order deadlines.
In its order denying without prejudice the plaintiff’s third motion to
appoint counsel, the court stated:
The plaintiff’s motion, which he apparently prepared without
help from any other inmate, shows that he is articulate and can
advocate for himself. The motion is clear and coherent. The court
has no evidence to change its earlier view that the plaintiff is
capable of representing himself at this stage. Specifically, the
plaintiff is capable of asking the defendants for information and
documents (and providing information and documents that the
defendants may request) and filing, or responding to, a dispositive
motion (such as a summary judgment motion).
If the plaintiff needs more time to conduct discovery, to
respond to a motion, or to file a motion, he may file a motion
1

(before the deadline expires) asking the court for more time. While
the court cannot give the plaintiff legal advice, it will liberally
construe the plaintiff’s filings and it will grant the plaintiff
additional time, if he shows that he needs it. The court will deny
without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Finally,
if the case reaches the point where there are issues for trial, or
where mediation might be appropriate, the plaintiff can renew his
request for a lawyer.
Dkt. No. 25 at 3-4.
In his motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff reiterates the arguments
he made in support of his motion to appoint counsel (dkt. no. 24). He states
that while he can read and write a bit, he does not have legal knowledge. He
indicates that an inmate named Willie Simpson was helping him—in fact, that
Simpson was the one who notified the plaintiff that his rights had been violated
and that he should file a lawsuit—but that Simpson was moved off his unit a
couple of months ago. Dkt. No. 26 at 1-2. The plaintiff reiterates that he does
not know how to work a computer or use a law library “to [his] advantage.” Id.
at 2. He also states that he surely will miss the deadlines in the scheduling
order if the court does not grant his motion for reconsideration. Id. The plaintiff
says that he has no clue as to how to respond to the upcoming deadlines
because he can’t really comprehend the paperwork the court sent him, id. at 3,
despite the fact that he recites back to the court its ruling that he had satisfied
the first part of the Pruitt test, and tried to hire a lawyer on his own, id. at 2.
The plaintiff asks that, if the court decides not to grant his motion to
reconsider and appoint counsel for him, that the court extend the scheduling
order deadlines until after his February 2019 release from prison. Id. at 3. The
plaintiff also references his mental illnesses, explaining that he takes four
2

different medications for his personality disorder, depression, mood swings and
schizophrenia. Id. He says that while his illnesses do not prevent him from
reading and writing, they make it difficult to follow complex instructions. Id.
There is no doubt that the plaintiff would benefit from having a lawyer.
Almost all inmates would benefit from having a lawyer. In the court’s
experience, most inmates who file lawsuits in federal court don’t have legal
knowledge, don’t know how to do legal research, and don’t have money to hire
lawyers on their own. Many suffer from mental illness. A number cannot read,
or read very well. The court often wishes that Congress would pass a law
paying for lawyers to represent inmates who file lawsuits. The court also often
wishes that there were more private lawyers who were willing to volunteer their
time to represent inmates free of charge. So far, neither of those wishes have
come true; there is no money for the court to hire lawyers for inmates, and
there are not enough volunteer lawyers to represent every inmate who asks
(and most inmates ask).
The plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is clear and easy to understand. The
court continues to believe that, at this point in the litigation (where the parties
are trading information and documents about the case), the plaintiff can
represent himself. The plaintiff has suggested a reasonable alternative to
appointment of counsel—extending the deadlines for the completion of
discovery and for filing dispositive motions until his release from prison in
February 2019. The court can, and will, grant that request, but it will deny the
plaintiff’s motion to reconsider its decision not to appoint counsel.
3

The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration to appoint
counsel. Dkt. No. 26
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s request for an extension of the
deadlines in the scheduling order. Dkt. No. 26
The court ORDERS that the deadline for the parties to complete
discovery is EXTENDED to the end of the day on March 29, 2019, and the
deadline for filing dispositive motions is EXTENDED to the end of the day on
April 30, 2019.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 21st day of August, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

4