Allen, Raequon v. Mahoney, David et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for assistance in recruiting counsel (dkt. 70) without prejudice. Plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment is due June 13, 2018, and defendant's reply is due June 25, 2018. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/7/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RAEQUON DEWRELL ALLEN,

Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION AND ORDER
16-cv-410-wmc

DEPUTY RICHARDSON,
Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Raequon Dewrell Allen is proceeding in this civil lawsuit against

defendant Deputy Richardson on a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim arising
from an incident that took place on January 28, 2016. On April 27, 2018, the court issued
an order resolving several motions, including Allen’s request for assistance in recruiting
counsel, which was denied. (Dkt. #70.) On May 3, 2018, the court received a renewed
motion for assistance in recruiting counsel from Allen, which appears to have crossed the
court’s order in the mail. In his renewed request, Allen states that the restrictions he’s
dealing with at Big Sandy - USP make it impossible for him to respond to defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, I’m denying Allen’s motion
without prejudice but will give him an additional two weeks to meet the opposition
deadline.
As previously explained to Allen, he does not have the right to counsel in this case.
Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). Rather, courts have discretion to
grant motions for assistance in recruiting counsel where a party meets several requirements.
Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760-61 (7th Cir. 2010). While the court previously

accepted that Allen has established both that he is unable to afford counsel and has made
reasonable efforts to find a lawyer on his own without success, at least at this stage, the
legal and factual complexities of the case do no exceed Allen’s ability to prosecute it. Pruitt
v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). The operative question is not whether a
lawyer will do a better job than he can -- that is almost always the case -- but rather whether
practically speaking Allen is unable to represent himself. The answer to that question
remains “no” because Allen’s claim in this lawsuit is straightforward and he is wellequipped to meet his obligations.
Allen is proceeding against Richardson on one claim: Richardson used excessive
force against him on January 28, 2016. His obligation at this point is to oppose defendant’s
motion for summary judgment by May 16, 2018. To do this, Allen needs to follow this
court’s procedures for summary judgment motions, which are attached to the Preliminary
Pretrial Conference order. (See dkt. 29, at 19-23.) In general, to respond to defendant’s
motion for summary judgment, Allen’s obligations are to submit an opposition brief, a
response to defendant’s proposed findings of fact, his own proposed findings of fact that
cites to evidence related to that incident, and his own evidence.
Allen’s filings in this lawsuit suggest that he remembers the event in question and
that he is capable of preparing his opposition materials. First, I am confident that Allen
can prepare a response brief. Because Allen’s status at the time of the incident could be
unclear, defendant’s motion for summary judgment set forth and analyzed his claim under
both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment’s standards for excessive force claims. Allen
should be able to review those arguments and respond with his own arguments by drawing
2

on his memory of events and the materials in the law library. Similarly, I am confident
that Allen can respond to defendant’s proposed finding of fact because it is only five pages
long and relates only to the events of January 28, 2016. As for his evidence, Allen appears
on track to meet his obligation. Allen can submit his own declaration, sworn under penalty
of perjury, that provides his version of events.

Moreover, Allen’s motion requesting

affidavits from other Dane County jail inmates suggest that is making efforts to reach out
to other individuals who witnessed the incident and might be able to submit declarations
corroborating his version of events. Accordingly, while Allen’s ability to garner evidence
may be limited by the nature of his incarceration, he is capable of responding to defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. As such, the motion for assistance in recruiting counsel
will be denied without prejudice, once again subject to Allen’s right to renew it should this
case proceed to trial and he discovers that the requirements at trial exceed his abilities.
That said, to give Allen additional time to gather his opposition materials, I will extend his
deadline to respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment four weeks, until June
13, 2018.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel (dkt. 70) is DENIED
without prejudice.

(2)

Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due
June 13 2018, and defendant’s reply is due June 25, 2018.

Entered this 7th day of May, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
______________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4