Jones v. Eckstein et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/22/2018: DENYING 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and DENYING 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kurtis D. Jones at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KURTIS D. JONES,

v.

Plaintiff,

SAMUEL MENNING, JACOB
HEFFERNAN, MICHAEL
DEDERING, JOSEPH SPENCER, DR.
JENNIFER HARRIS-FORBES, DR.
SAMANTHA SCHWARTZ-OSCAR,
ANDREW WICKMAN, REBECCA
LENZ, DANIEL CUSHING, JOSEPH
BONNIN, and JOHN LANNOYE,

Case No. 17-CV-1316-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff submitted two motions. The first
motion is for default judgment. (Docket #19). However, Defendants
answered the complaint on January 17, 2018, within the time limits set by
the Court. See (Docket #8 and #18). Perhaps Plaintiff had not yet received a
copy of the answer. In any event, Defendants are not in default and
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
Plaintiff’s second motion is for appointment of counsel. (Docket #20).
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 an indigent plaintiff if the plaintiff: (1) 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. 2007) (en banc)).

As to the first Pruitt element, Plaintiff avers that he has sought
representation from multiple lawyers. See (Docket #20 at 1 and #20-1). As to
second element, Plaintiff’s argument is largely premised on the idea that a
lawyer would do a better job than him. (Docket #20 at 1-2). The Seventh
Circuit has rejected this sort of reasoning. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655. Further,
the Court does not believe that this case is so complex as to be beyond his
capacity to present it. Though Plaintiff’s allegations involve mental health
treatment (or a lack thereof), they do not concern technical matters such as
diagnoses. (Docket #1 at 4-9). Instead, Plaintiff suggests that Defendants
either entirely ignored his self-harming activities or should have employed
a severe response, such as strapping him to a chair or bed. Id. Finally,
Plaintiff’s filings have been clear and cogent (if not always meritorious),
and do not reveal that the case exceeds his ability to present it. See (Docket
#1, #16, #19, #20). Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will,
therefore, be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment
(Docket #19) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment
of counsel (Docket #20) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2