Theus, Jerome v. Racine Correctional et al

Filing 36

ORDER that the requests for relief raised in plaintiff Jerome Theus's letter filed September 24, 2014, case no. 13-cv-681-bbc dkt. #34; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #28, are DENIED. Plaintiff's renewed motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, 13-cv-681-bbc dkt. #35; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #30, is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/12/2014. Associated Cases: 3:14-cv-00224-bbc, 3:13-cv-00681-bbc (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME THEUS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-cv-224-bbc
v.
LORA BLASSIUS, SUSAN NYGREN
DEBBIE NUTTING and LISA BAKER,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME ANTHONY THEUS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-681-bbc
v.
MS. WIGAND, MR. KEMPER and
MR. HOWARD,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In these consolidated civil actions, pro se plaintiff Jerome Theus, a prisoner at the
Racine Correctional Institution, contends that defendants have violated the Eighth
Amendment with respect to his medical needs and conditions of confinement. Plaintiff has
filed two letters with the court. In one, case no. 13-cv-681-bbc dkt. #34; case no. 14-cv-224bbc, dkt. #28, he states that the health services unit is requiring him to make a copayment

1

on all medical requests and that it did not start this requirement until after this lawsuit was
filed. (He also says that he has been unable to get the Doe nurses to provide him their
names, but that issue was resolved as of the filing of his next letter, 13-cv-681-bbc dkt. #35;
case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #30, providing their names.)
The first letter has several problems. If I construe it as a motion for a preliminary
injunction, plaintiff has failed to follow this court’s procedures (a copy of which plaintiff
received on March 18, 2014) because he has not filed proposed findings of fact. More
important, the issue raised (being charged a copayment in retaliation for his filing suit) does
not relate to the claims on which he has been allowed leave to proceed. The court will not
entertain preliminary injunction motions that do not relate to the underlying lawsuit. The
court recognizes an exception to this policy only where it appears that the alleged retaliation
would directly, physically impair the plaintiff’s ability to prosecute his lawsuit. Plaintiff’s
allegations do not suggest that his ability to litigate this suit has been impaired.
If I construe the letter as a motion to amend or supplement his complaint, plaintiff
fares no better. Plaintiff filed case no. 13-cv-681-bbc in September 2013. Allowing plaintiff
to file a new claim about new facts at this time would cause undue delay and prejudice to the
parties. Moreover, the issue whether plaintiff was retaliated against because he was charged
copayments after bringing this lawsuit does not relate to the claims plaintiff has raised in the
lawsuit (inadequate medical care and unsanitary conditions of confinement). If plaintiff
wishes to raise a claims concerning these allegations he will have to do so in a separate
lawsuit after he exhausts his administrative remedies with respect to that claim.

2

In the other letter, 13-cv-681-bbc dkt. #35; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #30,
plaintiff says that he has been trying to obtain a lawyer but that he has been unable to do
so and two of the lawyers he has contacted have failed to provide him a rejection letter. I
construe this letter as a renewed motion for assistance in recruiting in counsel. I am denying
this motion because plaintiff has not done enough to show that he has made sufficient
efforts to obtain counsel, Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992), and
because it is too early in the lawsuit to determine whether counsel is warranted, Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654, 655 (7th Cir. 2007).
In his letter, plaintiff simply lists two law firms he says he has contacted but from
which he has not received a response. Plaintiff’s allegations that lawyers have failed to
respond to him is surprising because it is the court’s experience that lawyers in this area
consistently provide responses to prisoner’s written requests for legal representation.
Plaintiff did not provide copies of the letters he sent to these lawyers or identify the date on
which he sent the letters. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether plaintiff has fulfilled
his obligations under Jackson, 953 F.2d 1070, to make a good faith effort to find
representation on his own. He says his wife has attempted to call lawyers but that they
refuse to provide letters. In the future, plaintiff should retain copies of the letters he sends
lawyers and, in the event that a lawyer does not respond to his letter within several weeks,
plaintiff may provide the court a copy of the letter and the date it was sent as a substitute
for the lawyer’s rejection letter.
In any event, at this early stage of the litigation, I cannot determine whether plaintiff

3

has the ability to prosecute this case on his own or how complex the case is, so I cannot
decide whether assistance from counsel is necessary. In any event, I would not assist
plaintiff in recruiting counsel until after the deadline has run on a motion for summary
judgment on exhaustion of plaintiff’s administrative remedies. Responding to such motions
is straightforward and rarely needs the assistance of counsel. Therefore, I am denying
plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to his raising it again after the deadline has run on the
filing of a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. The requests for relief raised in plaintiff Jerome Theus’s letter filed September 24,
2014, case no. 13-cv-681-bbc dkt. #34; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #28, are DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, 13-cv-681-bbc dkt.
#35; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #30, is DENIED without prejudice.
Entered this 12th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4