United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
EARNEST L. JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff
WISCONSIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, DR. EUGENE BURKE, AURORA HEALTH CARE, DR. JOHN DOE, and, DR. JEFFREY B. SHOVERS Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
ADELMAN District Judge
Earnest Johnson, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that defendants violated his civil rights. This
matter comes before me on: (1) plaintiff's motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (ECF
No. 2); (2) plaintiff's motion, and second motion, for
appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 4, 11); (3) plaintiff's
motion to state a medical malpractice claim (ECF No. 6); (4)
plaintiff's motion to change payment from the full filing
fee ($350.00) to $304.12 (ECF No. 9); (5) plaintiff's
motion to correct the caption and change defendant names (ECF
No. 10), and (6) plaintiff's motion for permission to
talk to a mediator (ECF No. 12).
on Payment of the Filing Fee
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") allows
inmates to proceed with their lawsuits in federal court
without pre-paying the $350 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915. However, the inmate must comply with certain
requirements, one of which is to pay an initial partial
filing fee. Id.
19, 2016, plaintiff petitioned to proceed without pre-paying
the filing fee. I assessed an initial partial filing fee of
$304.13 that was due within 21 days of the order. Plaintiff
paid the full filing fee ($350.00) on June 2, 2016.
Therefore, I will deny as moot plaintiff's motion to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (ECF No. 2)
further deny plaintiff's motion to change his payment
from the full filing fee ($350.00) to $304.13. (ECF No. 11).
I issued the order calculating the initial partial filing fee
before plaintiff sent in payment in full, and plaintiff
provides no explanation for why he initially paid the amount
in full but now seeks return of some of that money. Plaintiff
is ultimately required to pay the filing fee in full
notwithstanding the option to initiate the action without
prepayment of the entire amount. Plaintiff may file a renewed
motion to change payment if he can show that payment in full
was caused by prison error rather than his own request to
send that amount.
to Appoint Counsel
discretion to recruit counsel for litigants unable to afford
one in a civil case. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d
692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1);
Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864,
866-67 (7th Cir. 2013). However, litigants must first show me
that they have made reasonable attempts to secure private
counsel on their own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
653 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff must contact at least three
attorneys and provide me with: (1) the attorneys' names,
(2) the addresses, (3) the date and way plaintiff attempted
to contact them, and (4) the attorney's responses. To
that end, plaintiff must do more than merely assert that he
contacted several attorneys.
asserts that he contacted several attorneys but he has not
provided me with any of the other information I need.
Therefore, I will deny his motions to appoint counsel without
prejudice. (ECF Nos. 4, 11).
on Amending the Complaint
seeks to amend the complaint to add medical malpractice
claims. (ECF No. 6). He also seeks to change the caption to
dismiss Wisconsin Correctional Center and Aurora Health Care
from the action and add SGT Janus and Dr. Maria Beg as new
defendants. (ECF No. 10).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow plaintiff to amend the
complaint once as a matter of course. Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1)(A). As a result, plaintiff's motions to add
medical malpractice claims (ECF No. 6) and change the
defendants (ECF No. 10) are denied as moot. However,
plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before July 22,
2016, stating every claim he seeks to proceed with and
identifying every defendant he seeks to proceed against. I
will then issue one comprehensive screening order for the
entire action. If plaintiff chooses not to file an amended
complaint, I will screen the original complaint at that time.
is advised that the amended complaint must bear the docket
number assigned to this case and must be labeled
"Amended Complaint." The amended complaint
supersedes the prior complaint and must be complete in itself
without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v.
Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84,
133 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1998). The "prior
pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all matters not
restated in the amended pleading[.]" Id. at