United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSEPH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Redell Young, who is confined at the Dodge Correctional
Institution, is representing himself in this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This matter is before me
to screen Young's amended complaint. Also before me are
Young's request for restraining order and motions for
appointment of counsel.
Screening Young's Amended Complaint
requires the court to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff raises
claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,
” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b).
state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, “that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the
defendant was acting under color of state law.
Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824,
827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of North
Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see
also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The
Court gives a pro se plaintiff's allegations,
“however inartfully pleaded, ” a liberal
construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
case, Young was confined at the Brown County Jail at all
times relevant. He alleges that he submitted a health service
request to the jail's “HSU” stating that he
had burning and discharge from his genitals, and that he was
in severe pain and discomfort. A couple days later, he
received a response signed by the defendant, Emily Bolzinski,
stating that Young would be on the next available schedule to
be seen. Young alleges that he was not seen for a month. He
believes that Bolzinski did not take his request seriously
and he states that he was left in pain and discomfort for a
month. Young alleges that a month was an excessive amount of
time to wait for the kind of pain he was enduring. For
relief, he seeks $700, 000.
allegations that Bolzinski failed to treat his medical issues
for over a month resulting in pain and suffering implicates
his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment (if he
was a convicted prisoner) or the Fourteenth Amendment (if he
was a pretrial detainee). See Daniel v. Cook Cnty.,
833 F.3d 728, 733 (7th Cir. 2016); Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828-29 (1994).
Request for a Restraining Order
March 5, 2018, Young filed a request for a restraining order
against Bolzinski. (ECF No. 9.) He states that Bolzinski has
taunted him and denied him medical attention since he filed
this case. However, on March 14, 2018, Young notified the
court that he transferred from the Brown County Jail to the
Dodge Correctional Institution. There is no indication that
Young will return to the jail. Therefore, his request for
injunctive relief is moot. See Ortiz v. Downey, 561
F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2009).
Motions to Appoint Counsel
has filed two motions to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 9, 11.)
In a civil case, the court has discretion to decide whether
to recruit an attorney for someone who cannot afford one.
Navejar v. Iyola, 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).
First, however, the plaintiff has to make a reasonable effort
to hire private counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff must provide
the court with the names of the attorneys he contacted as
well as the dates of contact and copies of any letters he
received in response to the contact. After the plaintiff
makes that reasonable attempt to hire counsel, the court then
decides “whether the difficulty of the case - factually
and legally - exceeds the particular plaintiff's capacity
as a layperson to coherently present it.”
Navejar, 718 F.3d at 696 (citing Pruitt,
503 F.3d at 655). To decide that, the court looks not only at
the plaintiff's ability to try his case, but also at his
ability to perform other “tasks that normally attend
litigation, ” such as “evidence gathering”
and “preparing and responding to motions.”
states that he has been searching for a lawyer to represent
him but that he has not found one yet. It is not clear
whether Young has actually contacted any attorneys. Young
should submit the names of at least three attorneys he has
contacted in an attempt to find an attorney on his own and
indicate the attorneys' responses.
Young had made a reasonable attempt to find an attorney on
his own, I would deny his motion. This is because Young is
proceeding on a narrow claim against one defendant and he
appears capable to litigating the case on his own at this
stage of the proceedings. ...