Halford, Ernest v. Walker, Scott et al

Filing 33

ORDER dismissing 26 , 27 Proposed Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8., denying 18 , 21 , 29 Motions to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. Amended Complaint due 9/20/2012. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 8/23/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ERNEST LOUIS HALFORD,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
SCOTT WALKER, J. BEAHM, GARY
HAMBLIN, DAN STIEMSMA, TODD
NEHLS, STEVEN BAUER, BILL POLLARD,
JAMES DOYLE and RICK RAEMISCH,

11-cv-456-wmc

Defendants.
Plaintiff Ernest Louis Halford, a prisoner at the Waupun Correctional Institution,
submitted a proposed complaint and several supplements which appear to allege that he was
sexually assaulted by a correctional officer and that a videotape of this assault has been withheld
from him. In a February 7, 2012 order, the court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8 because it was exceptionally difficult to tell what claims Halford wished to bring against
which defendants. Halford has now responded by filing two documents (dkts. ##26, 27), which
the court will construe as a proposed amended complaint. He has also filed two motions for
appointment of counsel.
Unfortunately, Halford’s proposed amended complaint is as confusing as his first. He
again alleges that he was sexually assaulted by a correctional officer, but does not name the
officer despite being directed by the court to do so. Moreover, it is unclear from Halford’s
proposed amended complaint whether he is even interested in bringing a claim against that
officer or against other prison personnel for failing to protect him from the attack. Rather,
his allegations focus on prison personnel’s efforts to keep the videotape of the incident from
him and the sheriff’s failure to properly investigate the crime.

The problem with the allegations on which Halford focuses is that they do not seem
to support any claim. To the extent that Halford wishes to being a claim against prison
officials for refusing to give him the videotape, the federal Freedom of Information Act does
not apply to state agencies, e.g., Grand Cent. P'ship v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 484 (2d Cir.
1999), and there appears no basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over a stand-alone
claim under the Wisconsin open records law even were it so inclined. Nor is there any
cognizable claim against the sheriff for failing to investigate a crime. See, e.g., Gragg v. Skaggs,
2011 WL 5282652 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2011) (“As stated, Plaintiff's claim against the police
department, i.e., the City of Springfield, is that the police department failed to adequately
investigate or charge Skaggs with a crime. There is no legal duty to do either.”).
Rather than dismissing the case for Halford’s failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, however, the confusing nature of Halford’s submissions leads the court to
believe that the prudent course of action is to give Halford a final opportunity to submit an
amended complaint that more clearly sets forth the claims he wishes to bring in this action.
In particular, it is possible that Halford’s desire to obtain the videotape is based on his desire
to bring claims against the correctional officer who assaulted him, perhaps along with others
who may have acted indifferently to the risks of an attack or to steps necessary to prevent
reoccurrence. If this is a claim Halford wishes to bring, he must identify that person as a
defendant in the caption of his complaint and state explicitly that the defendant assaulted
him. If he does not know the specific identity of that defendant, he may call the defendant
“John Doe” or otherwise specify that he wishes to bring a claim against a person he cannot
identify. Likewise, for any other claim Halford wishes to bring, he must name the intended
targets of his claims as defendants in the caption of the complaint, and explain what they

2

did to violate his rights. If an action is allowed to proceed, Halford will be entitled to
discovery from the state, including recovery of any videotape of the alleged assault.
As for Halford’s motions for appointment of counsel, the court will deny those
motions as prematurely filed. Although Halford’s submissions thus far have been difficult
to follow, the court is not yet convinced that the assistance of counsel is necessary,
particularly given that the current task, submitting more understandable allegations, should
be within Halford’s reach. If the case progresses past the screening stage, Halford is free to
renew his motion, but he will need to explain in detail how the case is too complicated for
him to litigate himself. He will also have to show that he has been unable to engage private
counsel by submitting the names of at least three attorneys whom he has contacted and have
turned him down. See Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, dkt. ##26 and 27, is DISMISSED
without prejudice for his failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff
may have until September 20, 2012 in which to file an amended complaint
that complies with Rule 8. If he fails to file an amended complaint by that
date, the clerk of court is directed to close the case.

(2)

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel, dkt. ##18, 29, are DENIED
without prejudice to plaintiff renewing his motion should this matter be
allowed to proceed.

Entered this 23rd day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3