Shebelske, Brian v. Marathon County Adult Correction Facility et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 17 Motion for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel; denying 20 Motion for Entry of Default. The schedule as set forth in the pretrial conference order, dkt. # 36 , is STRICKEN and proceedings are STAYED pending recruitment of counsel for plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 9/9/2015. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BRIAN P. SHEBELSKE,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
15-cv-072-bbc
v.
SETH WISKOW, CARRY PELLOWSKE,
PRACTIONER THAO and RN THOMAS RALPH,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In this civil action, plaintiff Brian P. Shebelske, a prisoner at the Oshkosh
Correctional Institution, contends that when he was a pretrial detainee at the Marathon
County jail, staff members delayed diagnosing and treating his severe anemia and B-12
deficiency, resulting in permanent neuropathy, which other staff members failed to treat.
Plaintiff has now filed a motion for entry of default as to defendants Thomas Ralph and
Thao for failing to answer his amended complaint. Dkt. #20. Since the filing of plaintiff’s
motion, both defendants have filed their answers within their deadlines for doing so. Dkt.
##29, 31. Defendant Ralph was served on July 9, 2015 and answered plaintiff’s complaint
on July 28, two days before his July 30, 2015 deadline. Defendant Thao was served on July
30, 2015 and answered plaintiff’s complaint on August 5, 2015, 15 days before her August
20, 2015 deadline. Accordingly, I am denying plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff also asks for assistance in recruiting counsel. Dkt. #17. Before deciding

1

whether to provide plaintiff with assistance in seeking counsel, I must find that he has made
reasonable efforts to find a lawyer on his own and been unsuccessful or that he has been
prevented from making such efforts. Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7 Cir.
1992). Plaintiff has sworn that he solicited help from at least four lawyers, all of whom have
declined to represent him in this matter. Two lawyers wrote letters in response, which he
submitted as exhibits to his motion. For the other two lawyers, plaintiff attached only the
copies of the letters he sent. He does not say whether they responded. In any event, I am
persuaded that plaintiff has made sufficient efforts to recruit counsel on his own.
Next, I must consider both the complexity of the case and the pro se plaintiff’s ability
to litigate it himself. Pruitt v. Mote, 503F.3d 647,654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff's claims
concerns a medical care case in which he alleges to have suffered permanent injury as a result
of the deliberate indifference and negligence of jail staff members. It appears likely that his
claims will require expert testimony.

Accordingly, I find that plaintiff is entitled to

assistance in recruiting counsel.
A lawyer accepting appointments in cases such as this takes on the representation
with no guarantee of compensation for his or her work. Plaintiff should be aware that in any
case in which a party is represented by a lawyer, the court communicates only with counsel.
Thus, once counsel is appointed, the court will no longer communicate with plaintiff directly
about matters pertaining to this case. Plaintiff will be expected to communicate directly with
his lawyer about any concerns and allow his lawyer to exercise his or her professional
judgment to determine which matters are appropriate to bring to the court’s attention and

2

what motions and other documents are appropriate to file. Plaintiff will not have the right
to require counsel to raise frivolous arguments or to follow his directives. He should be
prepared to accept his lawyer’s strategic decisions even if he disagrees with some of them,
and he should understand that it is unlikely that this court will appoint another lawyer to
represent him should plaintiff choose not to work cooperatively with the first appointed
lawyer.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Brian Shebelske’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, dkt. #17,
is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, dkt. #20, is DENIED.
3. The schedule as set forth in the pretrial conference order, dkt. #36, is STRICKEN
and proceedings are STAYED pending recruitment of counsel for plaintiff. If I find counsel
willing to represent plaintiff, I will advise the parties of that fact. Soon thereafter, a status
conference will be held to establish a new schedule for resolution of the case.
Entered this 9th day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
____________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3