Schmidt, Travanti v. Ray, Ellen et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying as moot 19 Motion for Deposition Motion; denying 21 , 26 Motions for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/28/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TRAVANTI DOMINIQUE SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

V.

15-cv-538-wmc
LT. ESSER, and C/0 OSWALD,
Defendants.
The court granted plaintiff Travanti Dominique Schmidt leave to proceed on an
Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Esser and Oswald.

After receiving an

extension, defendants recently filed a motion for summa1y judgment on exhaustion
grounds. In anticipation of the filing of the motion and in response to the actual filing of
the motion, plaintiff has filed two motions for assistance in recruiting pro bono counsel. 1
As described in the motion, plaintiff is illiterate and suffers from mental health issues.
Judge Crocker was aware of plaintiff's limitations and directed defendants' counsel to assist
Schmidt in receiving assistance from a Green Bay Correctional Institution litigation tutor.
(Dkt. ##14, 20.) To date, and as confirmed by Schmidt's more recent filings (dkt. ##18,
19, 21, 2 6), Schmidt does have access to a litigation tutor and has been able to press his
claims.
The grounds for defendants' recently filed motion for summary judgment are
straight-fmward: defendants contend that plaintiff's inmate complaints about the use of
excessive force at issue in this lawsuit were untimely, and therefore properly denied, and,

1

Schnlidt also filed a "deposition motion," ·which appears to seek clarification on whether
defendants intended to file a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. (Dkt. # 19.)
Given defendants' filing, this motion appears moot.

as such, plaintiff has failed to exhaust his claims administratively as required under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § l 997e(a). (Defs.' Br. (dkt. #24).) With the
assistance of a litigation tutor, plaintiff is capable of responding to this straight-forward
motion. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the standard for
determining whether recruitment of counsel if required is " whether the difficulty of the
case - factually and legally - exceeds the particular plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to
coherently present it to the judge or jmy himself"). As such, the court will deny plaintiff's
motion for assistance in recruiting counsel at this time, but without prejudice to
reconsidering if plaintiff's claims survive defendants' pending motion.
Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion for summaiy judgment is due on
December 13, 2017. To ensure that he has ample time to secure the assistance of a
litigation tutor, the court will extend that deadline to Januaiy 5, 2017. Defendants' reply
is nowdueJanua1y 12, 2017.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Travanti Dominique Schmidt's deposition motion (dkt. # 19) is
DENIED as moot.
2) Plaintiff's motions for assistance in recruiting counsel (dkt. # #21, 2 6) are
DENIED without prejudice.

,, .M
Entered this~ day of November, 2017.