Alexander v. Potts et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 25 Motion to Correct Screening Order. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Randy Alexander) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RANDY ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-C-867

ALAN POTTS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Randy Alexander, who is currently representing himself, filed the instant action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court are Plaintiff’s motions to recruit counsel
and to correct facts in the screening order. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions will be
denied.
Plaintiff filed his first motion to recruit counsel on October 1, 2018. The court denied
Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that Plaintiff was competent to proceed pro se and that the case was
not sufficiently complex to warrant court-recruited counsel. The instant motion to recruit counsel
does not assert any new basis for his request that was not already considered in the first motion.
Again, the difficulties Plaintiff claims are the same difficulties any litigant would have in proceeding
pro se, and they do not justify the extraordinary measure of having the court recruit private counsel.
The court continues to find that counsel is unnecessary in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s second
motion to recruit counsel is denied.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to correct facts in the screening order. He notes that the
screening order does not portray the facts as they are alleged in his complaint. The manner in which

the court summarized the allegations contained in the complaint is of no consequence because the
court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on all of his claims against the defendants. Because Plaintiff has
not identified an error of law that merits reconsideration, there is no need to correct the screening
order. Accordingly, his motion to correct the screening order is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion to recruit counsel (ECF
No. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to correct the screening order (ECF
No. 25) is DENIED.
Dated this 4th day of October, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2