Gidarisingh, Sonniel v. Bittelman, Travis et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 19 Motion for court order to allow plaintiff to have a pen insert to litigate this case ; denying 20 Motion for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/24/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SONNIEL R. GIDARISINGH,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-916-wmc
TRAVIS BITTELMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Sonniel R. Gidarisingh is currently incarcerated by the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections at the Columbia Correctional Institution, where he is presently
confined in disciplinary segregation (“DS-1”).

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed

with an assortment of allegations stemming from a use of force, which resulted in plaintiff’s
placement in “control status.” (Dkt. # 9). Noting he has been provided only a “rubbery lead
type pencil” that is difficult to write with, plaintiff requests a court order directing prison
officials to provide him with a “pen insert” in his cell. Plaintiff also appears to seek court
assistance in locating pro bono counsel to represent him in this case. Both requests will be
denied for reasons set forth briefly below.

I. Plaintiff’s Request for a Pen Insert
Defendants oppose plaintiff’s request for a pen insert, citing reasons of safety and
security. In support, defendants provide an affidavit from David Melby, who serves as the
Corrections Unit Supervisor at CCI.

Melby explains that inmates housed in DS-I are

provided with a safety pencil because pen inserts have been used as instruments of self-harm
and to assault others.

(Dkt. # 23).

Melby adds that pen inserts, when altered, escape

detection by metal detectors and are easy to conceal because of their small size. He observes

that pen inserts have been “fished” from one cell to another and passed between inmates
during recreation time or hidden in “public locations” within DS-1, such as the law library
and visitation areas. To reduce the chance that pen inserts may become contraband, inmates
assigned to DS-1 are no longer allowed to have pen inserts in their cells and are authorized to
use a pen only while working on active cases in the law library.
Plaintiff does not allege specific facts demonstrating that he has been unable to litigate
his claims or that he has been prevented from meeting any court deadline for lack of a pen
insert. In that respect, there are no pending matters or imminent deadlines.
plaintiff’s pencil-written motions are neatly written and legible.

Moreover,

Based on this record,

plaintiff’s allegations do not overcome the prison’s legitimate interest in safety and security.
Therefore, plaintiff’s request for relief in the form of a pen insert will be denied.

II. Plaintiff’s Request for Pro Bono Counsel

Plaintiff has submitted several letters from local attorneys who indicate that they
are unable to take his case pro bono. Therefore, plaintiff appears to seek court assistance
in locating a lawyer who will represent him on a voluntary basis.

Before deciding

whether it is necessary to recruit counsel, a court must find that the plaintiff has made
reasonable efforts to find a lawyer on his own and has been unsuccessful or that he has
been prevented from making such efforts. Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070,
1072-73 (7th Cir. 1992). Because plaintiff has provided rejection letters from at least
three attorneys, plaintiff has met this requirement.

This, however, does not end the

inquiry.
Plaintiff fails to meet other criteria for court assistance in locating counsel because
2

he does not address the real question, which is “whether the difficulty of the case –
factually and legally – exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to
coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th
Cir. 2007). In other words, given the complexity of the case, does this plaintiff appear to
be competent to try the case on his own? See Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 763-64
(7th Cir. 2010); Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655-56).
As defendants note, plaintiff has litigated at least five other federal cases in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin and two in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit. The pleadings that plaintiff has submitted to date reflect that he is
highly literate and familiar with the legal system; in the realm of pro se prison litigators,
he ranks near the top in terms of competence.

Accordingly, his request for court

assistance is denied at this time. Plaintiff is free to renew his motion at a later time if he
feels incapable of representing himself as the case proceeds.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Sonniel R. Gidarisingh’s motion for a pen insert, dkt.
# 19, and his request for court assistance in locating pro bono counsel, dkt. # 20, are
DENIED.
Entered this 24th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3