Soto, Jose v. Kelley et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying plaintiff Jose Soto's 39 Motion for leave to proceed pro se on a claim of deliberate indifference. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/6/2017. (jef/cc: plaintiff),(ps)

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

JOSE SOTO,

v.

Plaintiff,
ORDER

C.O. KELLEY, C.O. GRANT, C.O. DONOVAN,
C.O. GEE, C.O. CROCKER, TRAVIS BITTELMAN,
and C.O. LAFERVE,

14-cv-514-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Jose Soto, represented by counsel, is proceeding on claims that defendants
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force against him and
that certain defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment by retaliating against
him when he mounted a hunger strike to protest the excessive force used against him. A trial
is scheduled for July 24, 2017.
Soto—without his attorney—has filed a motion for leave to proceed pro se on a claim
of deliberate indifference. 1 Dkt. 39. I will deny the motion because Soto is represented by
counsel, so he may not file motions directly with the court. He must work through his lawyer
and must permit his lawyer to exercise professional judgment to determine which matters are
appropriate to bring to the court’s attention and in what form. Soto should be prepared to
accept the strategic decisions made by his lawyer even if he disagrees with some of them. If
Soto decides at some point not to work with his lawyer, he is free to end the representation
and proceed pro se on all of his claims.

1

Soto, through counsel, already attempted to proceed on a deliberate indifference claim, but
I concluded that the deliberate indifference claim could not be joined with the excessive force
and retaliation claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Dkt. 28.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jose Soto’s motion for leave to proceed pro se on a
claim of deliberate indifference, Dkt. 39, is DENIED.
Entered January 6, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2