Williams, Jovan et al v. Reyez

Filing 76

ORDER denying plaintiff Jovan Williams's 75 motion for court assistance in recruiting counsel. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 3/20/2019. (jef),(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 fourth motion for court assistance in recruiting
counsel to represent him. Dkt. 75.
Williams says that on March 3, 2019, he overdosed and was sent to the emergency
room. When he returned to the prison, he was placed on observation status and did not have
access to his property, including his legal file that he needs for trial. He was released from
observation on March 7, but he has not yet received his property. Williams also says that he
has several witnesses he wishes to call at trial, but he does not know how to do so.
I will deny Williams’s request for assistance in recruiting counsel for the same reasons
that I provided in previous orders. Williams’s single deliberate indifference claim against a
single defendant is relatively simply in comparison to many cases brought by pro se litigants.
On February 22, I gave Williams specific instructions about what specific facts he should
present to the jury during his own testimony. I am not persuaded that Williams will be unable
to present his version of events at trial.

I am concerned about Williams’s inability to access his legal file. Williams was supposed
to file his witness and exhibit lists with the court by March 8, but he has not done so. It is not
clear from Williams’s motion whether he missed his deadlines because he did not have access
to his legal files, because he was on observation status and unable to file documents with the
court, or for some other reason. However, I do not think that this is a sufficient reason to
recruit counsel for Williams or to delay the trial. This trial should not involve an extensive
number of documentary exhibits. Presumably, Williams will use as trial exhibits the same
handful of documents that both sides cited to during summary judgment briefing. If Williams
still does not have access to his legal file at the time of the final pretrial conference next week,
on March 26, 2019 at 12:30 p.m., Williams should be prepared to identify at the final pretrial
conference the specific documents that he wants to introduce as exhibits at trial. The court will
then make copies of those documents from the summary judgment record and provide them
to Williams before the start of trial on April 1.
As for the witnesses that Williams wishes to call, he identifies the following witnesses,
all of whom appear to be DOC employees: Ms. Kroll (restrictive housing office, Waupun
Correctional

Institution);

Raymond

Koeller

(correctional

officer);

Andrew

Raddatz

(correctional officer); Gary Maier (doctor); and Jose Reyes (defendant). Williams missed the
March 1, 2019 deadline to subpoena these witnesses and has not stated that he would be able
to pay their witness fees. Therefore, Williams cannot compel these individuals to testify at trial.
But Williams may be able to introduce some of the information that these witnesses
could provide through other evidence. From my review of Williams’s summary judgment
documents, it appears that Williams wanted to call some of these witnesses to testify about
records they were involved in creating: Ms. Kroll wrote Williams a note identifying the dates

2

on which he was on a nutraloaf restriction, Dkt. 51-3; Officer Koeller wrote an incident report
regarding the incident at issue, Dkt. 51-8; Officer Raddatz responded in writing to questions
Williams asked him about the incident, Dkt. 51-7; and Dr. Maier wrote summaries of mental
health appointments he had with Williams, Dkt. 51-6. It appears that some of these documents
may be considered DOC business records. Normally, Williams would need to introduce the
documents through the testimony of a witness who could authenticate them. But because the
documents are DOC records and Williams cannot subpoena the necessary witnesses, the state
may be willing to agree to the admissibility of these records. I will not require the state to agree
to their admissibility, but defense counsel should review these documents and inform the court
at the final pretrial conference on March 26 whether defendant will object to the admissibility
of these specific documents.
Finally, Williams says that he is concerned that defense counsel will engage in racial
profiling during jury selection and he asks for information about how to prevent this. As
explained in the Trial Preparation order, Dkt. 59 at 9, I will be the only person who asks
questions to the jury. A total of 14 possible jurors will be called forward. After I have finished
questioning the 14, each side will be allowed to strike the names of three potential jurors. If
Williams believes that defense counsel strikes a juror because of race, Williams can raise that
concern during the jury selection process.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jovan Williams’s motion for court assistance in
recruiting counsel, Dkt. 75, is DENIED.
Entered March 20, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4