Jackson v. Schmaling et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 6/21/18 denying 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice and denying 32 Motion to Amend complaint. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Isaac Tyrone Jackson ) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ISAAC TYRONE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-C-1382

LT. CHAVEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff Isaac Jackson, an inmate currently serving a state prison sentence at Waupun
Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that the defendants violated his civil rights by shutting off water to his cell for several days while he
was housed at the Racine County Jail, forcing him to drink dirty toilet water that made him ill. The
case was recently reassigned to me from Magistrate Judge David Jones based on the nonconsent of
a party. This matter now comes before the court on Jackson’s second motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 31) and his motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 32). For the reasons stated
below, his motion to appoint counsel will be denied without prejudice, and his motion to amend the
complaint will be denied.
At the outset, Jackson’s motion to appoint counsel is not signed by him, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and the court could therefore strike it on that basis. In any
event, the court would deny the motion on its merits. Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or
statutory right to appointed counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc);
Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). But district courts do have discretion to recruit

attorneys to represent indigent parties in appropriate cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Before a
district court will recruit counsel, however, litigants must, as a threshold matter, make a reasonable
attempt to secure private counsel on their own. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. If the litigant has done so,
the court must then address the following question: “given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff
appear competent to litigate it himself?” Id. at 654–55 (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319,
321–22 (7th Cir. 1993)).
Jackson has submitted with his motion two letters from attorneys declining to represent him
in this matter. ECF No. 31-1. Even if the court were to conclude that these reflected a reasonable
attempt to secure private counsel on his own, however, the court would conclude that recruitment
of counsel is not appropriate at this time. On June 8, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jones entered an order
denying without prejudice Jackson’s first motion to appoint counsel for the following reasons:
Based on Mr. Jackson’s communications with the Court, the Court believes that he
is capable of proceeding without the assistance of counsel at this time. His writing
is clear and organized, and the Court understands what he is trying to say. Further,
his legal claim is not complex. The crux of his claim is that the defendants refused
to give him drinking water for 4 days which forced him to drink toilet water that
made him ill. Mr. Jackson’s best evidence to establish deliberate indifference is his
own testimony describing how the defendants responded when he asked for drinking
water. He does not need a medical expert or in-depth investigation of prison records
to prevail on this case. To the extent that counsel would be helpful to cross-examine
witnesses at trial, the Court will consider appointing counsel if Mr. Jackson survives
dispositive motions.
ECF No. 25 at 2. Jackson’s motion states that he is now housed in the segregation unit and no
longer has access to the inmates who were helping him to litigate this case. ECF No. 31. But
Jackson’s confinement to segregation does not change the fact that his own testimony will be the
cornerstone of his case, which does not require extensive investigation of prison records or other
documents. His motion to appoint counsel will therefore once again be denied without prejudice.
2

Turning to Jackson’s next motion, although he styles it as one to amend his complaint, in fact
he requests an extension of time to conduct discovery. ECF No. 32. He explains that he requires
additional time to obtain copies of his medical records from the Health Services Unit at the Racine
County Jail and that he has attempted to secure them in person, through complaint forms, by certified
mail, and through a family member. Id. Currently, however, the discovery deadline established by
the court’s scheduling order is September 11, 2018, just under three months away. ECF No. 28.
Those months give Jackson ample time to obtain his records, so an extension of time is not necessary
at this early phase in the case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jackson’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 31)
is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jackson’s motion to amend his complaint (ECF No. 32)
is DENIED.
Dated this 21st

day of June, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3