Williams, Jovan et al v. Reyez

Filing 63

ORDER that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his requests for court assistance in recruiting counsel, Dkt. 62 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 02/22/2019. (rks),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOVAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER REYES,

ORDER
17-cv-452-jdp

Defendant.
Pro se plaintiff and prisoner Jovan Williams is proceeding on a claim that defendant
Jose Reyes, a correctional officer at Green Bay Correctional Institution, violated Williams’s
Eighth Amendment rights by failing to prevent his attempted suicide. Trial is scheduled for
April 1, 2019. Before the court is Williams’s motion for reconsideration of my previous
decisions denying his requests for court assistance in recruiting counsel to represent him at
trial. Dkt. 62.
In denying Williams’s previous requests for assistance in recruiting counsel, I concluded
that he had not shown that the case is so complex or that his skills are so poor that I should
recruit a lawyer for him. Dkt. 36 and Dkt. 58. In his latest motion, Williams makes many of
the same arguments he has made previously: he is mentally ill, he has no legal knowledge or
litigation experience, he has relied on assistance from more knowledgeable inmates to prepare
court filings, and he will have difficulty handling a jury trial without assistance. He adds that
he has “learning disabilities” and that because he has been housed in solitary confinement for
more than three years, he has difficulty communicating and socializing with others and he
thinks that it will be difficult to provide his version of events to a jury without the help of an
attorney.

Although I am sympathetic to Williams’s concerns, I am not persuaded that Williams
will be unable to present his case at trial on his own. As I explained previously, Williams’s
single deliberate indifference claim against a single defendant is relatively simple in comparison
to many cases brought by pro se litigants. Williams says he has extremely limited access to a
law library, but Williams should not need much access to the law library to prepare for this
trial. Instead, he should prepare for trial by reviewing the summary judgment decision, Dkt. 8,
and the trial preparation order that he received on January 17. Dkt. 59.
As explained in the trial preparation order, Williams’s primary responsibility at trial will
be to tell the jury his version of events: what happened after Reyes delivered the nutraloaf to
Williams. I understand that describing these events to a jury may be difficult for Williams. To
prepare for this, Williams should review the summary judgment materials filed by both sides
and the court’s summary judgment decision. Williams should then create a written outline
regarding what he plans to say at trial. During his testimony, Williams should cover: (1) where
he was housed on June 27, 2016; (2) Reyes’s delivery of the nutraloaf on June 27, 2016; (3)
how the nutraloaf was packaged; (4) what Williams said to Reyes after he received the
nutraloaf; (5) how Reyes responded; (6) what Williams did with the bag after Reyes left; (7)
how prison staff responded; and (8) what physical injuries Williams suffered as a result of
placing the bag on his face. Williams will be permitted to refer to his written outline and any
other notes or documents he needs during his trial testimony.
Williams also states that he does not know how to locate supporting witnesses. But
Williams does not identify any witness in particular who he wishes to call. If Williams wants
to call another inmate as a witness, he should review the procedures for calling inmate witnesses
that were provided to him in the trial preparation order. Dkt. 59 at 5–7. If he is still confused

2

after reviewing the procedures, he should write to the court with specific information about
who he wants to call, what testimony the witness would provide, and what steps, if any, he has
taken to secure their testimony.
Williams also says that he cannot afford to provide copies of documents to the court,
but he does not say what documents he thinks he needs to provide. He also does not explain
whether he has requested a legal loan from the prison to pay for any copies he needs. If
Williams has exhausted his legal loan and thinks he needs to provide copies of documents to
the court for trial that the parties have not filed with the court already, he should write to the
court identifying which documents he wants to provide, where the documents are located, what
attempts he has made to obtain the documents, and why he thinks they are relevant to his
claim against Reyes.
In light of Williams’s abilities and the simple nature of his claim, I am persuaded that
Williams will be able to prepare for trial and present his version of events to the jury.
Accordingly, I am denying his motion for reconsideration and declining to recruit counsel to
represent Williams at trial.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jovan Williams’s motion for reconsideration of the
denial of his requests for court assistance in recruiting counsel, Dkt. 62, is DENIED.
Entered February 22, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3