Williams v. Swenson

21 Citing cases

  1. Dyjak v. Miller

    21-cv-3206 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2024)

    Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument (Doc. 53) is DENIED. Williams v. Swenson, 747 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019).

  2. Brooks v. Hoffman

    20-cv-05-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 12, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    To start, there is no rule that prisoners challenging the adequacy of their medical care are entitled to counsel. See Williams v. Swenson, 747 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's denial of request for counsel in medical care case). Moreover, the remaining claims proceeding to trial involve a narrow question about why defendants Schmidt and Fry ignored the unanimous consensus of the three medical doctors familiar with his need for better footwear.

  3. Anderson v. Lawrence Hall Youth Servs.

    22 CV 837 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2023)

    This is a problem because, ordinarily, when “parties submit[] cross-motions for summary judgment,” courts must consider them separately, “one at a time.” Black Earth Meat Market, LLC v. Vill. of Black Earth, 834 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2016); Williams v. Swenson, 747 Fed. App'x 432, 433 (7th Cir. 2019). In order to do so, a court must, of course, be sure which filings relate to which cross-motion.

  4. Debauche v. Mashak

    17-cv-524-wmc (W.D. Wis. Nov. 10, 2021)

    There is no categorical rule that all prisoners challenging the adequacy of their medical care are entitled to counsel. See Williams v. Swenson, 747 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's denial of request for counsel in medical care case); Dobbey v. Carter, 734 Fed.Appx. 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir. 2010) (same).

  5. Doughty v. Grossman

    19-cv-529-wmc (W.D. Wis. Nov. 10, 2021)

    There is no categorical rule that all prisoners challenging the adequacy of their medical care are entitled to counsel. See Williams v. Swenson, 747 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's denial of request for counsel in medical care case); Dobbey v. Carter, 734 Fed.Appx. 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir. 2010) (same). At this stage in this lawsuit, it is not apparent that plaintiff will need an expert to prove his claim against Grossman.

  6. Yerks v. Mcardle

    19-cv-595-wmc (W.D. Wis. Nov. 5, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    There is no categorical rule that all prisoners challenging the adequacy of their medical care are entitled to counsel. See Williams v. Swenson, 747 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's denial of request for counsel in medical care case); Dobbey v. Carter, 734 Fed.Appx. 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir. 2010) (same). As noted, given his assertions that his filings to date have largely been prepared by another inmate, the court has no basis to infer that plaintiff's abilities to gather basic evidence and present legal arguments are below those of hundreds of other prisoners who bring civil rights cases in this court each year.

  7. Winston v. Kron

    20-cv-367-jdp (W.D. Wis. Jun. 2, 2021)

    But as I told Winston in denying his first request for counsel, the court of appeals has rejected the view that all claims involving medical care require the assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Williams v. Swenson, 747 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019); Dobbey v. Carter, 734 Fed.Appx. 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2018); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir. 2010); Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 264 (7th Cir. 1997). And not all medical claims require expert testimony.

  8. Kroska-Flynn v. Richardson

    18-cv-304-wmc (W.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2021)

    There is no categorical rule that all prisoners challenging the adequacy of their medical care are entitled to counsel, much less a medical expert. See Williams v. Swenson, 747 F. App'x 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's denial of request for counsel in medical care case); Dobbey v. Carter, 734 F. App'x 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir. 2010) (same). In this case in particular, the law governing plaintiff's claims is well established, and it is not clear yet whether this case will turn on questions requiring medical expertise.

  9. Wand v. Johnson

    18-cv-500-wmc (W.D. Wis. Jun. 2, 2020)

    Further, there is no categorical rule that all prisoners challenging the adequacy of their medical care are entitled to counsel. See Williams v. Swenson, 747 F. App'x 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's denial of request for counsel in medical care case); Dobbey v. Carter, 734 F. App'x 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir. 2010) (same). More practically, Wand advocates well for himself, as illustrated by his various motions and his recently filed motions for summary judgment, indicating that he is familiar with the materials facts related to his claims and will be able to respond to defendants' dispositive motions adequately.

  10. Sierra-Lopez v. Lamarca

    17-cv-599-wmc (W.D. Wis. Feb. 28, 2020)

    The fact that plaintiff's case involves medical care does not automatically entitle him to counsel. See Williams v. Swenson, 747 F. App'x 432, 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's denial of request for counsel in medical care case); Dobbey v. Carter, 734 F. App'x 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir. 2010) (same). The law governing plaintiff's claims is well established, and at this point, it is not clear yet whether the case will even turn on questions requiring medical expertise.