Czapiewski, David v. Russell, Todd et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel; denying 21 Supplement. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/13/2015. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DAVID CZAPIEWSKI,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
15-cv-208-bbc
v.
TODD RUSSELL, JOHN O’DONOVAN,
WILLIAM POLLARD and ANTHONY MELI,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff David Czapiewski, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Resource Center, is
proceeding on claims under the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment related to his allegations that prison officials at the Waupun Correctional
Institution punished him for expressing suicidal thoughts and ignored his requests for
psychological assistance, resulting in his acts of self-harm. Plaintiff now asks the court to
assist him in recruiting counsel. Dkt. #13. In deciding such motions, the court considers
whether plaintiff has made sufficient efforts on his own to find counsel and whether the
complexity of the case exceeds plaintiff’s ability to litigate it. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
661 (7th Cir. 2007); Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992).
It is this court’s general practice to require plaintiffs to show their efforts at recruiting
counsel by filing with their motions letters from at least three lawyers who have declined to
represent them. Plaintiff has supplemented his motion with copies of four such letters, dkt.

1

#21, so the next question is whether his case is so complex as to outweigh his ability to
litigate it. Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 762 (7th Cir. 2010); Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 661.
At this stage, I am not persuaded that litigating these claims is beyond the scope of plaintiff’s
abilities. To date, plaintiff’s filings and his letters to the clerk of court have been articulate
and thorough. Furthermore, his claims appear to be straightforward: he alleges that he was
given conduct reports and disciplined for stating his suicidal feelings and that his need for
psychological assistance for those same suicidal feelings was ignored.
Plaintiff says that he is unable to represent himself because he is seriously mentally
ill and because he takes medication that may cause confusion and hallucinations. He cites
a 2006 letter from a psychologist regarding his fitness to stand trial and drug information
inserts from his prescribed medicines. However, the 2006 letter is too old to be informative
of plaintiff’s mental state now. Plaintiff also says that he was adjudicated incompetent to
stand trial in April 2015, but the standard for whether a criminal defendant is competent
to stand trial is different from the standard for whether plaintiff is capable of representing
himself in a civil action. Especially because the court has no details as to why plaintiff was
found incompetent, this evidence is not instructive of plaintiff’s abilities to litigate this case.
With respect to plaintiff’s medicine, a possible side effect of one prescribed drug is
confusion. However, plaintiff does not say whether he has ever suffered from this side effect
and nothing in his filings shows evidence of such a problem.
Plaintiff says that he has received assistance from another inmate from the Waupun
prison with his filings, but the quality of his filings has not diminished despite the fact that

2

he has been transferred from the Waupun prison to the Wisconsin Resource Center in
between the filing of his complaint and now, suggesting that plaintiff is capable of preparing
his filings on his own. Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The
analysis should be of the plaintiff’s ability to litigate his own claims, and the ‘fact that an
inmate receives assistance from a fellow prisoner should not factor into the decision whether
to recruit counsel.’”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Henderson v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d 559,
565 (7th Cir. 2014)).
I am denying plaintiff’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel at this time. From
the information before me, I conclude that plaintiff is capable of proceeding with this case
without the assistance of counsel at least through any motions for summary judgment on
whether plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. If the court denies defendants’
motion on exhaustion or if defendants do not file such a motion by the deadline, plaintiff
is free to renew his motion for assistance in recruiting counsel at that time. If plaintiff
chooses to renew his motion, he should be sure to include the court order on his competency
from April 2015 and the psychiatric evaluation on which that order was based.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff David Czapiewski’s motion for assistance in recruiting

3

counsel, dkt. #13, supplemented at dkt. #21, is DENIED without prejudice.
Entered this 13th day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
____________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4