Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; November 19, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Algenone Williams, a Wisconsin prisoner representing himself, filed two federal complaints alleging constitutional rights violations by employees at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, which were consolidated for appeal. In both cases (appeal nos. 03-1277 and 03-1464), the district court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions due to Williams' inadequate responses. On appeal, Williams argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his requests for extensions of time, appointment of counsel, and requiring defendants to photocopy exhibits for his response. The court found these arguments to be frivolous and affirmed the judgments.
Williams specifically claimed the need for court-appointed counsel in appeal no. 03-1464; however, he did not raise this issue in the district court for appeal no. 03-1277, leading to its exclusion from consideration. The court noted that while a civil plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to counsel, under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint counsel for those unable to afford it if they first attempt to secure private representation and demonstrate that their case requires legal assistance. Williams did not make any effort to find a lawyer before requesting appointment and failed to demonstrate that his case was complex enough to warrant counsel, thus the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Regarding extensions of time, the court emphasized its discretion in managing schedules and noted that it provided Williams adequate opportunity to respond to summary judgment motions. Despite receiving extensions, Williams submitted documents that were improperly served and did not address the defendants' proposed findings of fact. The court rejected these documents but offered guidance on how to properly respond and granted another extension, warning that it would decide the motions without his input if he failed to comply.
Williams did not respond to summary judgment motions, leading to the court's denial of his third request for an extension. Even pro se litigants must adhere to court rules, and the district court acted within its discretion in denying Williams's motions. He argued that the court should have required defendants to photocopy materials for his response. While prisoners are entitled to meaningful access to the courts, they do not have the right to have others subsidize their litigation costs. Williams had previously received a $200 loan from the state for litigation, and the court clarified that it was not obligated to provide further funds for photocopying. Instead of complying with court orders, Williams focused on contesting the denial of additional funds, which had already been deemed without merit. His claims on appeal were found to lack substance, including his assertion of judicial bias, which requires more than mere allegations. The judges had provided him guidance on the law and additional time to meet legal requirements. Consequently, his appeals were deemed frivolous, earning him two strikes under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and requiring him to prepay filing fees for future actions unless he can demonstrate imminent danger of injury. The court's decision was affirmed.
