Rivers v. Johnson et al

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/2/2018. 46 Plaintiff's motion to withdraw motions GRANTED; plaintiff's motions to compel and motion for extension of time (dkt. nos. 43-45) WITHDRAWN. 47 Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel DENIED without prejudice. 54 Plaintiff's motion for deposition DENIED. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Denzel Rivers at Waupun Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DENZEL SAMONTA RIVERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-1496-pp

DOYAL JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DKT. NO.
46) AND DEEMING WITHDRAWN THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
(DKT. NOS. 43, 44) AND HIS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO.
45); DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT NO. 47); DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DEPOSITION (DKT. NO. 54)
______________________________________________________________________________
On July 6, 2018, the court issued an order granting the plaintiff’s motion
for additional time to conduct discovery. Dkt. No. 40. The court extended the
discovery deadline to August 17, 2018. Id.
On August 14, 2018, the court received from the plaintiff two motions to
compel—one asking the court to order the defendants to respond to his
requests for admissions, dkt. no. 43, and another asking the court to order the
defendants to respond to his requests for interrogatories, dkt. no. 44. Three
days later, the court received a motion asking the court to extend the discovery
deadline because the plaintiff hadn’t received the discovery he’d asked the
court to compel. Dkt. No. 45.
On August 24, 2018, the court received the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw
the two motions to compel and the motion to extend the discovery deadline.
1

Dkt. No. 46. He explained that he’d received the discovery he’d requested, so
there was no need for the court to compel the defendants to do anything, and
no need for an extension of time. Id. The court will grant the plaintiff’s motion
to withdraw those motions.
The same day the court received the motion to withdraw, it received the
plaintiff’s second motion asking the court to appoint counsel to represent him.
Dkt. No. 47. In this second motion, the plaintiff reiterated that he cannot afford
a lawyer, that being in prison impedes his ability to litigate this complex case,
that he has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law,
and that he continues to struggle with his mental health issues. Id. He also
pointed out that the court had set a deadline of September 21, 2018 for the
parties to file dispositive motions, and he indicated that this was complex to
him. Id.
As the court has explained to the plaintiff twice now, the court has
discretion in a civil case to recruit a lawyer for someone who cannot afford one.
Navejar v. Iyola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013). The litigant must first make
reasonable efforts to hire private counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d
647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). Once the plaintiff makes reasonable attempts to hire
counsel, the court then decides “whether the difficulty of the case—factually
and legally—exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to
coherently present it.” Navejar, 718 F.3d at 696 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655).
The court looks not only at the plaintiff’s ability to try his case, but also at his
ability to perform other “tasks that normally attend litigation,” such as
2

“evidence gathering” and “preparing and responding to motions.” Id. “[D]eciding
whether to recruit counsel ‘is a difficult decision: Almost everyone would
benefit from having a lawyer, but there are too many indigent litigants and too
few lawyers willing and able to volunteer for these cases.’” Henderson v. Ghosh,
755 F.3d 559, 564 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711
(7th Cir. 2014)).
The court understands that the plaintiff suffers from mental health
issues, that he is in custody, that he can’t afford to hire a lawyer, and that he
does not have much knowledge about the law. But the plaintiff has filed many
documents over the course of this case. The court has been able to understand
every one of them. He has been able to engage in discovery, and has been
persistent in pursuing his rights. At this point, the plaintiff needs to respond to
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (a motion where the defendant
has argued that there are no genuine disputes as to the facts, and that the
defendant is entitled to win the case as a matter of law). The court will also
extend the deadline for the plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment, if
he chooses to file one. It is more common for defendants to file motions for
summary judgment; plaintiffs don’t frequently file such motions. But because
the court has not issued this order until the deadline for the plaintiff to file
such a motion had passed, the court will give the plaintiff time to think about
whether he wants to file such a motion. The court continues to believe that the
plaintiff can represent himself.

3

On September 20, 2018, the court received from the plaintiff a request to
allow him to conduct depositions of defendants Johnson and Kast. Dkt. No. 54.
He made this request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Id. He asked to conduct the
deposition from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Waupun Correctional Institution. Id.
The court will deny this motion. First, a deposition is a form of discovery. The
deadline for the parties to complete their discovery was August 17, 2018; the
plaintiff’s request to take the depositions of the defendants is untimely,
because he dated it over a month after the close of discovery. Further, the
plaintiff has had the opportunity to ask questions of the defendants, through
the discovery process he’s already completed. He served them with requests for
admissions, which they answered. He also served them with interrogatories,
which they answered. He has had his opportunity to ask the defendants
whatever he’d like to ask them about his allegations that they did nothing to
protect him from harming himself.
Finally, the court is aware that the plaintiff has filed a motion alleging
that Waupun has misinterpreted the court’s filing fee order, and is illegally
computing and deducting his installment fee payments against his filing fee.
Dkt. No. 48. The court is considering that motion, and hopes to rule on it
shortly.
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw. Dkt. No. 46. The
court DEEMS WITHDRAWN the plaintiff’s motions to compel and his motion
for extension of time. Dkt. Nos. 43-45.

4

The court DENIES without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to appoint
counsel. Dkt. No. 47.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for deposition. Dkt. No. 54.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 2nd day of October, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

5