Northern, Lawrence v. Baumgart, A. et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 33 , 15 Motions for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel; denying as moot 21 Motion to Compel. The schedule in this case, including the May 11, 2015, trial date, is STRICKEN and proceedings are STAYED pending recruitment of counsel for plaintiff. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/6/2015. (jef),(ps)

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

LAWRENCE NORTHERN,
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-367-jdp1
v.
KOREEN FRISK,
Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Lawrence Northern, a prisoner incarcerated at the New Lisbon
Correctional Institution, is proceeding on a claim that defendant Koreen Frisk, a nurse
clinician at the prison, failed to properly examine plaintiff or provide him with any treatment
following a serious injury to his left Achilles tendon. Plaintiff eventually received surgery to
repair the tendon, but only after Frisk allegedly ignored the problem. Trial is set for May 11,
2015. Currently before the court are two motions for the court’s assistance in recruiting
counsel for plaintiff, as well as a motion to compel discovery filed by plaintiff. After
considering the parties’ briefing, I will grant plaintiff’s request for the court to locate counsel
for him. In light of this decision, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery will be denied as
moot.
Even before plaintiff’s complaint was screened in this matter, the court denied as
premature a motion for assistance in recruiting counsel for plaintiff. Dkt. 4 and 6. As the case
progressed, plaintiff filed two new motions for counsel, Dkt. 15 and 33. Financial
information provided by plaintiff makes it clear that he is unable to afford counsel. See 28

1

This case was reassigned to me pursuant to a May 16, 2014 administrative order. Dkt. 14.
1

U.S.C. § 1915(e). (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
afford counsel.”). Also, plaintiff attaches several rejection letters from area attorneys, which
shows that he has made reasonable efforts to locate an attorney on his own. See Jackson v.
Cnty. of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 1992) (“the district judge must first
determine if the indigent has made reasonable efforts to retain counsel and was unsuccessful
or that the indigent was effectively precluded from making such efforts.”)
This leaves the question 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). As plaintiff points out, he
will have to show at trial that defendant acted with deliberate indifference when plaintiff
complained to her about his Achilles problem, a difficult task almost certainly requiring
plaintiff to present expert medical testimony showing how the delay in treatment harmed
him. This persuades me that this case will outstrip plaintiff’s abilities and that it is
appropriate to grant his motion. Accordingly, the court will attempt to locate counsel for
plaintiff. Further proceedings in this case will be stayed until counsel is found, at which point
the court will hold a telephonic status and scheduling conference with both sides.
Finally, I note that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of various medical records is
mooted—at least for now—by the decision to recruit counsel for plaintiff.2

2

Even had plaintiff’s motion for counsel not been granted, the parties’ dispute appears to
boil down to where and when certain medical records should have been made available to
plaintiff. Defendant’s response materials seem to show that prison staff has attempted to
accommodate plaintiff’s requests. In the usual case I would have the parties work out a plan
for disclosure of these materials, but that is unnecessary given the decision to locate counsel
for plaintiff.
2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Lawrence Northern’s renewed request for the court’s assistance in
recruiting him counsel, Dkt. 15 and 33, is GRANTED. The schedule in this
case, including the May 11, 2015, trial date, is STRICKEN and proceedings
are STAYED pending recruitment of counsel for plaintiff. If I find counsel
willing to represent plaintiff, I will advise the parties of that fact. Soon
thereafter, a status conference will be held to establish a new schedule for
resolution of the case.

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, Dkt. 21, is DENIED as moot.

Entered this 6th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3