Teas, William v. Suliene, Dalia et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying plaintiff William Teas's motion to expedite recruitment of counsel and for preliminary injunction, dkt. # 57 , with respect to his request to expedite recruitment of counsel. With respect to his motion for preliminary injuncti ve relief, defendants may have until November 6, 2017 to file a response that includes evidence regarding plaintiff's (1) medical restrictions, (2) current bunk assignment and (3) available alternatives, if any. Plaintiff may have until November 13, 2017 to file a reply. The stay on discovery is lifted solely for the purpose of addressing plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/30/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WILLIAM TEAS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
16-cv-452-bbc
v.
DALIA SULIENE, KARL HOFFMAN,
KAREN ANDERSON, MEREDITH MASHANK,
LILLIAN TENEBRUSO, NANCY WHITE,
ANTHONY ASHWORTH, LUCAS WEBER,
JANEL NICKEL,KEVIN BOODRY,
MICHAEL DITTMAN, JAMES GREER,
SCOTT BAUER and JAMES KOTTKA,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff and prisoner William Teas is proceeding on the following claims:
(1) defendants Dalia Suliene and Karl Hoffman failed to treat plaintiff’s back
pain adequately, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Wisconsin law;
(2) defendants Suliene, Hoffman, Meredith Mashak, James Greer, Michael
Dittman and Lucas Weber denied plaintiff’s requests for a “medically
appropriate mattress and pillow,” in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act;
(3) defendants Kevin Boodry, Anthony Ashworth, Janel Nickel, Nancy White,
Karen Anderson and James Kottker denied plaintiff’s requests for a raised
bunk while he was housed in segregation, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act;
(4) defendants Anderson, Mashak, White and Lillian Tenebruso failed to
schedule appointments with physicians in a timely manner, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment;

1

(5) defendants Anderson, Mashak, Tenebruso and White failed to take any
action when defendants Suliene and Hoffman failed to provide appropriate
treatment for plaintiff’s back problems, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On March 22, 2017, I granted plaintiff’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel,
dkt. #48, and the case has been stayed pending recruitment of counsel. Although the court
is continuing to seek counsel to represent plaintiff, the court has not yet found an attorney
to represent plaintiff on a pro bono basis.
Now before the court is a motion filed by plaintiff to expedite the recruitment of
counsel and for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. #57. Unfortunately, the court has no way
to expedite the recruitment of counsel for plaintiff. At this time, the court is attempting to
recruit counsel for a number of plaintiffs, with only a limited number of attorneys willing
and able to handle cases on a pro bono basis in this district. The court will continue to seek
counsel to help plaintiff, but it may take several more weeks or even months for the court
to find counsel willing to represent plaintiff in this case. In the meantime, plaintiff should
make efforts to recruit counsel on his own. Alternatively, if plaintiff would like to proceed
without an attorney, he should notify the court so that a new schedule can be set for this
case. However, if he still wishes for court assistance in recruiting counsel, he will have to be
patient.
As for plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff alleges that he is once
again being forced to sleep on a floor or nearly on the floor, even though alternatives are
available. He alleges that being on the floor causes him severe back pain and limits his
ability to leave his bed to write, make phone calls, collect his meals and even use the toilet.

2

Plaintiff’s motion raises serious concerns about his current situation. Plaintiff’s motion does
not comply with this court’s preliminary injunction procedures, but this may reflect his
limited experience. In light of plaintiff’s serious allegations, I conclude that a response from
defendants is necessary. Additionally, although discovery in this case has been stayed
pending recruitment of counsel, it is necessary to lift that stay for the purpose of litigating
plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion. Accordingly, I will order that defendants respond
to the allegations in plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion regarding his (1) medical
restrictions, (2) current bunk assignment and (3) available alternatives.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff William Teas’s motion to expedite recruitment of
counsel and for preliminary injunction, dkt. #57, is DENIED with respect to his request to
expedite recruitment of counsel. With respect to his motion for preliminary injunctive relief,
defendants may have until November 6, 2017 to file a response that includes evidence
regarding plaintiff’s (1) medical restrictions, (2) current bunk assignment and (3) available
alternatives, if any. Plaintiff may have until November 13, 2017 to file a reply. The stay
on discovery is lifted solely for the purpose of addressing plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

3

injunction.
Entered this 30th day of October, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
____________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4