Opinion
09-cv-23-slc.
May 22, 2009
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a "motion for reconsideration" of this court's order dated May 11, 2009, in which I denied a motion by plaintiff to expand the scope of the lawsuit. Further, because plaintiff's court filings had been consistently incoherent and confused, I informed plaintiff that I would seek counsel to represent him voluntarily.
In his new motion, plaintiff does not discuss my decision to seek counsel for him, so I presume that he does not mean to challenge that portion of the order. (It would be surprising if he did mean to challenge it in light of the three motions for appointment of counsel that he has filed. Dkt. ##3, 9 and 25.) Rather, it seems that plaintiff again is arguing that he should be permitted to include new claims in his lawsuit, such as a challenge to his arrest and a request to reinstate the law license of a lawyer who has been disbarred. As I have told plaintiff many times before, this lawsuit is about defendants' alleged failure to protect him from an assault by another prisoner when he was housed at the Wisconsin Resource Center in 2007. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow plaintiffs to combine claims against different defendants arising from a different set of facts.
Once I have located a lawyer willing to represent plaintiff, that lawyer will discuss with plaintiff the appropriate scope of the lawsuit and provide advice about how to proceed. Until then, the case is stayed and plaintiff should refrain from filing additional motions seeking to add new claims or requests for relief.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Rodney Moore's motion for reconsideration, dkt. #46, is DENIED.