Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 92.1 kB
Pages: 3
Date: April 10, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 726 Words, 4,185 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/9330/34.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware ( 92.1 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :05-cv-00013-GIVIS Document 34 Filed 04/10/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JIMMIE LEWIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CONSOLIDATED
v. ) Civ. N0. 05-013-GMS
) Civ. N0. 05-051-GMS
WARDEN RAFAEL WILLIAMS, ) Civ. N0. 05-052-GMS
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
On December 20, 2005, the court consolidated three cases filed by Jimmie Lewis (D.I.
22.) The court consolidated cases were then screened pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
1915A, certain claims were dismissed, but service was allowed 0n the majority 0f the defendants.
(D.I. 25, 26.) In the order dated March 6, 2006, Lewis was ordered t0 provide the court with one
copy of the complaint (D.I. 2), the amended complaint (D.I. 8), and the second amended
complaint (D.I. 18) for service upon each defendant as specified therein. (D.I. 26.)
Lewis advises the court that upon receipt of the consolidation order he viewed the
complaint (D.I. 2), the amended complaint (D.I. 8), and the second amended complaint (D.I. 18)
as useless, and he destroyed the documents. (D.I. 30.) He moves the court for a waiver of the
requirements of the March 6, 2006, order, or in the altemative, that the court provide him with
copies of the complaint, the amended complaint, and the second amended complaint. (D.I. 31,
32.) Lewis advises the court that due to his indigent status the only way he can adhere to the
court’s order is if the court provides the copies to him without charge.
Lewis is advised that the fee for photocopies is fifty cents (50¢) per page, and while

Case 1:05-cv—00013-G|\/IS Document 34 Filed 04/10/2006 Page 2 of 3
Lewis has been allowed to proceed informa pauperis, in the normal course of proceedings he
would be required to pay the photocopy fee. Nonetheless, because it appears the documents were
destroyed in error, Lewis will be provided with one copy, and one copy only, of each of the
requested documents. His motions for copies of same without payment of photocopy fees (D.l.
31, 32), therefore, are GRANTED.
‘ Lewis also inquires of the court, "exactly how many copies of DI. 2, DI. 8 and DI. 18
does the court expect me to forward‘?" (D.I. 31.) The are sixty-one remaining defendants. The
answer, therefore, is that each defendant must receive one copy of the complaint, amended
complaint, and the second amended complaint. Because Lewis is the individual who chose to
sue the large number of defendants, it is up to Lewis to provide the documents for service upon
each defendant. The defendants who remain in this case are as follows: C/O B. Apa , C/O A.
Armstrong, Dr. Ammburo, Capt. D. Bamford, Capt. Berggrun, C/O Mark Blue, C/O Nannett
Bordley, C/O Canon, C/O D. Carlock, C/O Tamiko Chaffer, Corporal Chapel, Corporal
Cumberback Corporal A. Davis, Capt. Emig, Lt. S. Farmer, First Correctional Medical, C/O
Gassner, Corporal A. Goins, C/O Hardgrave, Corporal Harriford, C/O G. lnce, Capt. Jefferson,
Nurse Jeromy, C/O C. Johnson, Sgt. Kennedy, Sgt. Lewis, April Lyonns, C/O Mase, Sgt.
Medford, Lt. Mitchel, Donald Napolin, C/O Ms. Newman, Capt. P. Parker, Lt. Polk, C/O
Presley, C/O Mack Reynolds, Sgt. C. Richards, C/O Rodriguez, Dr. Rogers, Lt. Joseph Sabato,
Lt. Sheets, C/O Soul, C/O Talenti, Stanley Taylor, Sgt. Fred Way, C/O Wayman, C/O V.
Williams, Major Dave Williams, Raphael Williams, C/O D. Young, Dr. Joshi, Dr. Boston,
Georgia Sutton, Mr. Fish, Lt. Singh, Diane Hernandez, Nurse lmia, Dr. Ali, Thomas L. Carroll,
Lt. Chudzik, and Debra Muskarelli.
2

Case 1:05-cv—00013-G|\/IS Document 34 Filed 04/10/2006 Page 3 of 3
Finally, Lewis moves for appointment of counsel. (D.I. 28.) He was advised by the court
in its March 6, 2006, order that motions for appointment of counsel filed prior to service would
be dismissed without prejudice with leave to refile following service. (D.I. 26.) To date, service
has not been effected upon defendants. Accordingly, the motion is premature. Therefore, it is
ordered that Lewis’ motion to appoint counsel (D.I. 28) is DENIED without prejudice with leave
to refile following service.
UNI STAEI ES DISTRIC€ JUDGE
April I O , 2006
Wilmington, Delaware
3