Sheppard, Charles v. Schultz et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed on his claim that Belinda Schrubbe violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and state negligence law by discontinuing his seizure medication. Plaintiff's request for assistance in recruiting counsel is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 8/16/2016. (elc),(ps)

.

....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES SHEPPARD,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

l 4-cv-797-slc

OFFICER SCHULTZ, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Charles Sheppard is proceeding on claims that Officer Schultz, Nurse
Schaffer and Paul Sumnicht violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and state
law by denying him access to his prescription seizure medication and causing him to
suffer severe seizures and injury.

In the March 14, 2016 screening order, I denied

plaintiff's request to proceed with a claim against Belinda Schrubbe, the HSU Manager
at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.

I subsequently denied a motion for

reconsideration regarding his proposed claim against Schrubbe, explaining that plaintiff
had not alleged facts suggesting that Schrubbe should be held personally liable for the
denial of his seizure medication. In particular, plaintiff had not alleged that Schrubbe
approved, condoned, or turned a blind eye to the denial of his seizure medication, or
even that she was aware that his seizure medication had been canceled. He also had not
alleged that Schrubbe was responsible for reviewing, approving or second-guessing
decisions regarding medication by physicians or other medical providers at the prison, or
that she knew or should have known that policies relating to the discontinuation of
medication could result in inmates suffering a substantial risk of serious harm .

..L.

Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for reconsideration regarding his proposed
claim against Schrubbe. Dkt. 31. He attaches information obtained from defendants
during discovery suggesting that Schrubbe was personally involved in the decision to
discontinue his seizure medications. See dkt. 31-1. Based on this information, plaintiff
will be permitted to proceed against Schrubbe as a defendant on his Eighth Amendment
and state law claims.

Plaintiff has also renewed his request for assistance in recruiting counsel, stating
that he is worried this case will involve complex medical terms that he will not
understand or be able to respond to adequately. For the reasons already explained to
plaintiff in my previous order denying his request for counsel, dkt. 25, this motion will
be denied without prejudice. It is still too early to conclude that the complexity of the
case exceeds plaintiffs ability to litigate it. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir.
2007). Although this is a medical care case that may present some complex medical
questions, plaintiffs submissions to date show that he has been able to grasp the most
relevant legal and factual issues.

Additionally, as I explained to plaintiff both in my

previous orders and during the Preliminary Pretrial Conference, his claims are actually
more straightforward than those in many medical care cases, in that his claims relate to a
narrow set of events within a narrow time-frame.

Until I more fully understand the

nature of defendants' defenses and the arguments that will be made, I cannot determine
whether this case will require delving into complex medical issues or whether a medical

2

expert will be required. It may be that this case will be resolved on more straightforward
grounds.

In sum, I am not yet persuaded that plaintiff's case is so complex or his skills so
lacking that recruitment of counsel is warranted at this time. If at any point it appears
that plaintiff does need the assistance of counsel, then I will immediately reconsider this
ruling.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Charles Sheppard's motion for reconsideration
(dkt. 31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave
to proceed on his claim that Belinda Schrubbe violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment and state negligence law by discontinuing his seizure medication.
request for assistance in recruiting counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Entered this 16th day of August, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

Isl
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

3

His