Sievert, Charles et al v. Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 2 motion for leave to proceed informa paupers, denying motion for appointment of counsel. Amended complaint signed by both plaintiffs due 11/20/2013. Trust Fund Account Statements due 11/20/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 10/31/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES J. SIEVERT,
ANTHONY L. THOMAS and
"JOHN DOE PATIENTS," et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
13-cv-737-wmc

v.

SAND RIDGE TREATMENT CENTER,
DEB McCOULLOCH, AMBER BEST, ED
SCALAN, SUSAN PALMER, TONY ASSET,
STEVE SNYDER, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH SERVICES and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-52, rt al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs Charles J. Sievert and Anthony L. Thomas are presently in state custody
pursuant to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston,
Wisconsin. Plaintiffs have filed a proposed complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on
behalf of all "John Doe Patients" at the Sand Ridge Facility.

Having filed two

supplements or amendments to the complaint, plaintiffs seek leave to proceed in Jonna

pauperis and they have also filed a motion for "appointment of counsel." Plaintiffs'
motions are denied at this time for reasons set forth briefly below.
As an initial matter, the complaint and proposed supplements are signed only by

Sievert, meaning that Thomas has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. ll(a) ("Every
pleading, written motion and other paper must be signed by ... a party personally if the
party is unrepresented."). Unless promptly corrected, the court is required to strike an

afford counsel."); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653-54 (7th Cir. 2007) (en bane) (noting
that, at most, the federal IFP statute confers discretion "to recruit a lawyer to represent
an indigent civil litigant pro bono publico"). In other words, a reviewing court only has
discretion to recruit a volunteer. Ray, 706 F.3d at 867.
The court cannot construe the pending motion for counsel as a request for
assistance in locating a volunteer attorney. First, plaintiffs have not qualified for indigent
status or otherwise demonstrated that they are eligible to proceed under the federal in

forrna pauperis statute. Second, as noted above, the complaint is deficient because it is not
signed by both plaintiffs. Third, the court will not consider a motion for assistance in
locating volunteer counsel in this case until after it has screened the complaint as
required by the federal in forrna pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § l 915(e)(2), and determined
whether any portion is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted or seeks monetary damages from an individual who by law is immune from
such relief.

Until the court has completed the screening process required by

§ l 915(e)(2), any motion for counsel is premature.

Once plaintiffs have cured the above-referenced deficiencies in their pleadings, and
the court has screened the complaint as required by § l 915(e)(2), they may re-file a
motion for counsel if: ( 1) they satisfy the threshold requirement for court assistance in
recruiting counsel by showing that they have made reasonable efforts to find a lawyer by
providing the names and addresses of at least three lawyers that they have asked to
represent them in this case and who turned them down, Jackson v. Counry of McLean, 953
3

F.2d 1070, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 1992), and (2) they demonstrate that exceptional
circumstances exist that would benefit from the assistance of trained legal counsel. See

Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 763-64 (7th Cir. 2010); Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655-56.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. # 2) filed by
plaintiffs Charles J. Sievert and Anthony L. Thomas is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. # 3) is also DENIED.
3. Within twenty days of the date of this order, plaintiffs Charles

J.

Sievert

and Anthony L. Thomas must file ( 1) an amended complaint that is signed
by both plaintiffs; and (2) certified copies of their resident trust fund
account statement for the six months preceeding the complaint.

If

plaintiffs fail to comply as directed, the court will dismiss this case
without further notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.
31
Entered this _ _ day of October, 2013.

BY THE COURT:
/s/

PETER OPPENEER
Magistrate Judge

4