Blackshear, Julian v. Giernoth, Michael et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying plaintiff Julian R. Blackshear's 23 motion for assistance in recruiting counsel. By May 15, 2018, defendants must explain when plaintiff may expect to receive his legal papers pertaining to this case and whether plaintiff has adequate access to the law library while in clinical observation. Plaintiff may file a response by May 25, 2018. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/1/2018. (jef),(ps)

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

JULIAN R. BLACKSHEAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
TINA AMIN, SGT. JOHN/JANE DOE,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN/JANE DOE,
MARIANA TOKAR, MICHELLE WILINSKI,
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR JOHN/JANE
DOE, MAINTENANCE WORK JOHN/JANE
DOE, MICHAEL MAYER, AMY EPPING,
MARCELO CASTILLO, STEPHANIE O’NEILL,
and CHARLES VENA,

ORDER
17-cv-735-jdp

Defendants.1
Pro se plaintiff Julian R. Blackshear is incarcerated at the Racine Correctional
Institution (RCI). I granted him leave to proceed on Eighth Amendment claims against several
RCI officials who he alleges were deliberately indifferent to the hazards present in his
observation cell. Defendants have moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. Dkt. 19. On April 18, Blackshear filed a one-page response; a “motion for ADR
Act,” Dkt. 22; and a motion for assistance in recruiting counsel. Dkt. 23. I will deny
Blackshear’s motions and order defendants to respond to Blackshear’s allegations that he has
been denied access to his legal materials and the law library. I will stay consideration of
defendants’ transfer motion pending defendants’ response.

1

I have updated the caption to reflect defendants’ full names.

In his “motion for ADR Act,” Blackshear appears to indicate that he is willing to
negotiate with defendants. Dkt. 22. Blackshear is free to do so by communicating directly with
defendants’ counsel. Court-sponsored mediation is available if both sides agree to mediate.
Blackshear may discuss mediation with defendants’ counsel. Blackshear does not ask for, nor
does he need, my permission to engage in negotiation or mediation. So I will deny his “motion
for ADR Act.”
As for Blackshear’s request for counsel, as I have previously explained to him, this court
generally requires a pro se plaintiff to demonstrate that his is one of those relatively few cases
in which it appears from the record that the legal and factually difficulty of the case exceeds
his demonstrated ability to prosecute it. See Dkt. 14, at 4. Blackshear contends that he needs
a lawyer because of his mental health issues. Mental health issues are, unfortunately, common
among prisoners litigating in this court and are not alone a reason to recruit counsel. So I will
deny Blackshear’s motion without prejudice to his renewing it later on.
But Blackshear also complains that he has been in clinical observation for “the last 16
of 18 days,” and that he doesn’t know when he’ll be let out. Dkt. 23. While in clinical
observation, he says, he has “no access to [his] legal files or the law library.” Id. These are not
reasons to recruit counsel, but they do raise questions about whether Blackshear’s right of
access to the courts is being infringed. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “the
fundamental constitutional right of access to courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates
in preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law
libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,
828 (1977). Blackshear’s one-page response to defendants’ transfer motion is devoid of citation
to legal authority, so I have some reason to suspect that he does not have access to the law

2

library. I will instruct defendants to look into the matter and submit a letter to the court
explaining when Blackshear may expect to receive his legal papers pertaining to this case and
whether he has adequate access to the law library while in clinical observation. I will allow
Blackshear the opportunity to reply to defendants’ response. After considering the parties’
filings, I will determine whether to allow Blackshear the opportunity to supplement his
response to defendants’ transfer motion before ruling on it.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Julian R. Blackshear’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, Dkt. 23,
is DENIED.
2. By May 15, 2018, defendants must explain when plaintiff may expect to receive his
legal papers pertaining to this case and whether plaintiff has adequate access to the
law library while in clinical observation. Plaintiff may file a response by May 25,
2018.
Entered May 1, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3