Jenkins, Donta v. Frisch et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying plaintiff Donta Jenkins's motion for assistance in recruiting counsel in case no. 16-684, dkt. #34 in case no. 16-694 and dkt. #34 in case no. 17-25 without prejudice. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time, d kt. #31 in case no. 16-684,dkt. #32 in case no. 16-694 and dkt. #33 in case no. 17-25, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request for a telephonic status hearing, dkt. #33 in case no. 16-684, dkt.#35 in case no. 16-694 and dkt. #35 in case no. 17-25, i s GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to set a joint telephonic scheduling conference in these three cases for the purpose of scheduling new pre-trial deadlines and trial dates. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 1/17/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DONTA JENKINS,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
17-cv-25-bbc
v.
CAPTAIN MILLER, J. GOUHDE,
LUCAS WEBBER. MICHEAL DITTMAN,
C/O S. TOBI, C/O JITTSWITTS,
C/O SWEENEY and LINDSEY WALKER,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DONTA JENKINS,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
16-cv-694-bbc
v.
DR. SYED, D. VALERIOUS, NEWBURY, GOLDE,
KATHALEN, K. DEYOUN NC4, T. ANDERSON,
WALTERS, MTLORAE and C. WARNER,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DONTA JENKINS,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
16-cv-684-bbc
v.
DR. FRISCH, DR. HUENKE and DR. NORGE,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Donta Jenkins is proceeding these three cases on various claims

relating to alleged violations of excessive force, unconstitutional conditions of confinement
and inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment and state law. Plaintiff
1

was represented by Attorney Lisa Goldman, who withdrew her representation of plaintiff in
all three cases with the court’s approval on November 21, 2017. Dkt. #30 in case no. 16684; dkt. #31 in case no. 16-694; dkt. #32 in case no. 17-25. Now before the court in all
three cases are plaintiff’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, unopposed motion for
a four-month extension of all pretrial deadlines and motion for a telephone status conference.
Dkt. ##31, 32, 33 in case no. 16-684; dkt. ##32, 34, 35 in case no. 16-694; dkt. ##33,
34, 35 in case no. 17-25. For the reasons below, I am denying the motion for assistance in
recruiting counsel without prejudice and granting the motions for an extension of time and
a telephonic scheduling conference.

OPINION
A. Assistance in Recruiting Counsel
As the court explained to plaintiff when denying his earlier motions for assistance in
recruiting counsel, a pro se litigant does not have a right to counsel in a civil case, Olson v.
Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), but a district court has discretion to assist pro
se litigants in finding lawyers to represent them. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir.
2007). A party who wants assistance from the court in recruiting counsel must meet several
requirements. Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760-61 (7th Cir. 2010). First, he must
show that he is unable to afford to hire his own lawyer. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court
may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”). Second, he
must show that he made reasonable efforts on his own to find a lawyer to represent him.

2

Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992). Finally, he must show that
the legal and factual difficulty of the case exceeds his ability to prosecute it. Pruitt, 503 F.3d
at 654-55.
In a text-only order entered in all three cases on November 21, 2017, Magistrate
Judge Crocker found that plaintiff satisfied the first two requirements but explained that
plaintiff must show why any or all of his cases exceed his ability to litigate them. E.g., dkt.
#30 in case no. 16-684. In his motion, plaintiff states briefly that he is inexperienced and
that an attorney would help him investigate, perform legal research, present evidence,
question witnesses and hire an expert witness. However, the question is not simply whether
a lawyer might do a better job. Court assistance in recruiting counsel is appropriate only
when the plaintiff demonstrates that his is one of those relatively few cases in which it
appears from the record that the legal and factual difficulty of the case exceeds his ability to
prosecute it. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). I have no basis for
concluding that plaintiff’s case is so complex or that his skills are so poor that I should
recruit a lawyer for him at this time.
Although plaintiff is concerned with his limited experience and access to legal
materials, his primary task at this stage is telling the court what happened, when, where and
who was involved. His efforts should focus on obtaining the evidence he needs to prove his
claims, including collecting medical and other prison records, declarations from witnesses and
any other relevant documents or evidence. The Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order
provides extensive information about how to conduct discovery and obtain evidence.

3

Plaintiff should review that order again and, if he is confused about how to obtain evidence,
he should write a letter to defendants’ counsel explaining precisely which documents or other
evidence he wants to obtain. If he is still confused after conferring with defendant’s counsel,
he should contact the court for help. In deciding any future motion for summary judgment,
the court will apply the appropriate law to the facts, even if plaintiff cannot find and provide
the law on his own or does not understand how the law applies to his facts.
Accordingly, I am denying his motion without prejudice. If the issues involved in this
case turn out to be more complicated than they appear right now, or if plaintiff is unable to
proceed on his own as this case progresses, then plaintiff is free to renew his motion.

B. Motions to Extend Deadlines and Set Status Conference
Plaintiff, with assistance from Attorney Goldman, has filed an unopposed motion
seeking to extend the schedules in all three of his cases by four months to account for his
anticipated time being held in detention facilities that do not have law libraries and where
plaintiff does not currently have access to his case materials. In the November 2017 text
only order, Magistrate Judge Crocker noted that plaintiff was back in the Eau Claire County
Jail and was headed to the Milwaukee Detention Facility, where he was likely to remain until
March 2018. The government stated at the hearing that it would not oppose an extension
of the deadlines in plaintiff’s cases. In light of the withdrawal of plaintiff’s counsel and
plaintiff’s reincarceration, I will grant plaintiff’s motion for extension of time and request for
a telephonic status conference. I will direct the clerk of court to set a telephonic scheduling

4

conference before Magistrate Judge Crocker for the purpose of scheduling new pre-trial
deadlines and trial dates in all three of plaintiff’s cases.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Donta Jenkins’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, dkt. #32 in
case no. 16-684, dkt. #34 in case no. 16-694 and dkt. #34 in case no. 17-25, is DENIED
without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for extension of time, dkt. #31 in case no. 16-684,
dkt. #32 in case no. 16-694 and dkt. #33 in case no. 17-25, is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s request for a telephonic status hearing, dkt. #33 in case no. 16-684, dkt.
#35 in case no. 16-694 and dkt. #35 in case no. 17-25, is GRANTED. The clerk of court
is directed to set a joint telephonic scheduling conference in these three cases for the purpose
of scheduling new pre-trial deadlines and trial dates.
Entered this 17th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

5