Rowe, Michael v. Trish et al
ORDER denying plaintiff's 33 Motion for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel; denying plaintiff's 34 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/13/2015. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MICHAEL ROWE,
NURSE TRISH, KAREN ANDERSON,
SGT. HAGG, LT. KARNA and
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In an order entered September 23, 2015, I denied pro se plaintiff Michael Rowe’s
motion for summary judgment because he failed to follow this court’s Procedures to be
Followed on Motions for Summary Judgment. Dkt. #31. Now, two weeks after receiving
the court’s September 23 order, plaintiff has filed another motion for summary judgment
along with a letter stating that if this second attempt at filing a motion for summary is not
correct, he will need the assistance of an attorney in this case.
Plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment will be denied, again without
prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling it before the November 2, 2015 deadline to file dispositve
motions. Plaintiff does not appear to have even attempted to follow this court’s procedures
on filing a motion for summary judgment despite having received specific instructions on
how to do so. In the September 23 order, I explained to plaintiff that to comply with the
procedure, he needed to file a motion, a brief in support, a separate document setting forth
his proposed findings of facts and any actual evidence, such as incident reports or medical
records, that support his proposed facts. In addition, plaintiff received another copy of the
written Procedures to be Followed on Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff seems to
think that by failing to follow procedures, he is entitled to receive assistance from a
volunteer attorney to help him litigate his case. Unfortunately for plaintiff, this is not so.
As plaintiff has been told in two previous orders denying his prior motions for
assistance in recruiting counsel, he must first show that he has submitted letters from at least
three lawyers who have denied his requests for representation. Dkt. ##18 and 21. Plaintiff
has not yet met this requirement. Nor has plaintiff demonstrated that this case will present
difficulties that are beyond his abilities, as required by Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55
(7th Cir. 2007). At this point, plaintiff’s submissions indicate that he can effectively
organize and present his arguments. Plaintiff simply needs to take the time to read the
instructions and try to the best of his ability to follow them. It is possible that this case will
prove to exceed plaintiff’s ability to litigate it, and if that happens I will attempt to recruit
counsel. But that is not yet the case and plaintiff’s request for counsel will be denied.
Plaintiff should know that he is not required to file his own motion for summary
judgment. In fact, in a case like this one that requires plaintiff to prove defendants’ mental
state, it is unusual for plaintiff to seek summary judgment and even more unusual for a
plaintiff to obtain summary judgment. This is because, in the absence of an admission from
defendants, it is difficult for a plaintiff to prove as a matter of law that defendants
consciously refused to help him. Thus, it may make more sense for plaintiff to focus his
efforts on responding to any summary judgment motion that defendants file instead of filing
his own motion.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Michael Corez Rowe’s motion for assistance
recruiting counsel, dkt. #33 is DENIED without prejudice and plaintiff’s second motion for
summary judgment, dkt. #34 is DENIED without prejudice to his refiling his motion in
accordance with the procedures outlined in the pretrial conference order.
Entered this 13th day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
BARBARA B. CRABB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?