United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.
Robert Pierre Kidd, appearing pro se, is a prisoner at Waupun
Correctional Institution. Kidd filed several cases about
prison officials mistreating him when they respond to his
seizures; I combined all of those cases under this case
number, granted him leave to proceed against four defendants,
and directed Kidd to file an amended complaint explaining his
allegations against the other prison officials he wished to
sue. Dkt. 11.
has filed a letter discussing his claims, Dkt. 20, and two
proposed amended complaints, Dkt. 21 and Dkt. 23. Kidd has
also filed a variety of other motions.
biggest problem with Kidd's previous filings was that he
scattered his allegations about seizure treatment among
several complaints. Kidd has fixed that problem by
consolidating his allegations and setting out some details
about each incident in a pattern of treatment occurring over
several years. And he has now identified more than 20
defendants he identifies by name, as well as several
“John Doe” defendants. But Kidd only explains how
a few of those defendants were connected to any of the
particular incidents. So I cannot accept either of his
proposed amended complaints. Instead, I'll give him a
final chance to submit an amended complaint that explains how
each defendant was involved in violating his rights.
should organize his new amended complaint much like his
current attempts, giving the date of each individual incident
in which he believes he was mistreated. But he must also
explain which of the defendants were involved in each
incident and specifically what they did to harm him. It will
not be enough for him to provide a list of 20 or so
defendants; he will need to explain how each defendant was
involved. If Kidd fails to properly amend his complaint, I
will allow him leave to proceed only on the claims I approved
in my previous screening order. See Dkt. 11.
has filed a series of motions asking for the court to arrange
for payment of his filing-fee debt to this court, either by
use of his veteran's pension or his prison trust fund
account. See Dkt. 27; Dkt. 31; Dkt. 34; Dkt. 47. He
suggests that prison officials are blocking his attempts to
withdraw funds to pay off his debt faster than it would be
paid off under the filing-fee payment mechanism of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). But the clerk of court has informed me that
Kidd has paid in full all of his fees, so the issue is moot.
Kidd also mentions that he was overcharged for postage in
conjunction with his attempts at paying his filing fees. But
that issue is not related to the claims in this lawsuit so I
cannot consider it now.
has filed a motion asking for preliminary injunctive relief
ordering prison officials to transfer him to the Wisconsin
Resource Center, where he believes that he will receive
better treatment regarding his seizures. Dkt. 35. But Kidd
has not followed this court's rules for motions seeking
injunctive relief, so I will deny his motion. To show that he
is entitled to injunctive relief in this court, the party
seeking such relief must file detailed findings of fact,
supported by evidence, explaining the need for an injunction.
I've already sent Kidd a copy of this court's rules
for this type of motion, but I will attach another copy of
those procedures to this order. Kidd should follow those
instructions in any future motion seeking injunctive relief.
has filed a motion asking the court to recruit counsel to
assist him with this case because he has recently suffered a
string of seizures. Dkt. 26 and Dkt. 37. To show that it is
appropriate for the court to recruit counsel, a plaintiff
must first show that he has made reasonable efforts to locate
an attorney on his own. See Jackson v. Cty. of
McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 1992)
(“the district judge must first determine if the
indigent has made reasonable efforts to retain counsel and
was unsuccessful or that the indigent was effectively
precluded from making such efforts”). To meet this
threshold requirement, this court generally requires
plaintiffs to submit correspondence from at least three
attorneys to whom they have written and who have refused to
take the case. Kidd has not submitted any such letters, which
is reason enough to deny his motion.
had Kidd submitted three rejection letters, I would deny the
motion, because the court will seek to recruit counsel for a
pro se litigant only when the litigant demonstrates that his
case is one of those relatively few in which it appears from
the record that the legal and factual difficulty of the case
exceeds his ability to prosecute it. Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647, 654, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The
court must decide for each case “whether this
particular prisoner-plaintiff, among many deserving and
not-so-deserving others, should be the beneficiary of the
limited resources of lawyers willing to respond to
courts' requests.” McCaa v. Hamilton, 893
F.3d 1027, 1036 (7th Cir. 2018) (Hamilton, J., concurring). I
understand Kidd's concern that his medical condition will
hamper his ability to litigate the case, but he has been able
to submit filings both before and after the episodes he
describes in his motion, so he should be able to continue on
his own, working around those episodes. Therefore, I will
deny Kidd's motion. As the case progresses, if he
continues to believe that he is unable to litigate the
lawsuit himself, then he may renew his motion, but he will
have to explain what lawyers he has contacted and why he
cannot litigate the case himself. If Kidd is incapacitated by
seizures as he approaches a deadline set for him in this
case, he should inform the court and I will consider
extending the schedule to accommodate him.
Plaintiff Robert Pierre Kidd may have until November 12,
2019, to submit a proposed amended complaint stating claims
against each of the ...