You are here

Pro Bono Opportunities for Attorneys

The Eastern District of Wisconsin has pro bono opportunities, primarily in prisoner civil rights cases. The court recruits attorneys for limited purposes, such as representing a civil pro se litigant in mediation, as well as for full representation. Wisconsin SCR 31.05(7) states that an attorney may claim one CLE credit for every five hours of pro bono work, up to six credits per reporting period. Below are the cases that the court is currently recruiting for. For more information on a case, please contact the court's pro se staff attorneys at ProSeStaffAttorneys@wied.uscourts.gov.

The court is currently looking for pro bono volunteers for the following cases:

Mediation Only

None at this time.

 

Discovery, Draft/Respond to Dispositive Motions, and Pursue Settlement

  • Barrett v. Armor Correctional Health Services Inc., et al., 20-cv-1128-WCG. The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a prisoner proceeding on a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on allegations that the medical care he received as a pretrial detainee at the Milwaukee County Jail was objectively unreasonable. Shortly before being housed at the jail, plaintiff had been shot multiple times. Plaintiff alleges that, per policy, Defendants refused to give him pain medication stronger than Tylenol. He also alleges that an infection in his finger went untreated, ultimately resulting in the finger being amputated.  Defendants have moved for summary judgment.  Deadlines are stayed pending the recruitment of a lawyer who would respond to the summary judgment motion and perhaps assist Plaintiff with settlement discussions. Please see Judge Griesbach's screening order for more information.  

  • Clark v. Moore, 21-cv-832-LA. The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a prisoner proceeding on an Eighth Amendment medical care claim and state law medical malpractice claims based on allegations that the defendants continued to prescribe him pain medication that was ineffective and that they delayed in examining him. The plaintiff is also proceeding on an Eighth Amendment claim based on allegations that the Waupun Correctional Institution’s healthcare system is inadequate. Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment. Deadlines are stayed pending the recruitment of a lawyer who would respond to the summary judgment motion and perhaps assist the plaintiff with settlement discussions. Please see Judge Adelman’s screening order for more information.

  • Hayes v. Fleury, 22-cv-406-JPS. The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a prisoner proceeding on Eighth Amendment excessive force, state law intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Wis. Stat. § 895.441 claims based on allegations that the defendant, his therapist, sexually exploited him. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the fact that she is not a state actor for the purposes of Section 1983 and because Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.The court denied the motion, without prejudice, and stayed all deadlines pending the recruitment of a lawyer who would assist with responding to any future motion to dismiss and perhaps assist with the case going forward.

Trial

  • Blunt v. Lindsay, 21-cv-325-WED. The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a prisoner plaintiff proceeding on an excessive force claim based on allegations that a Milwaukee Police Department officer injured his hand while booking him into the Criminal Justice Facility. The laywer would represent plaintiff at trial or in possible settlement discussions or mediation. Please see Judge Duffin's summmary judgment decision for more information.

  • Wendricks v. Serres, 20-cv-1189-PP. The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a prisoner who alleges that police officers’ use of verbal commands, taser deployments, knee strikes, baton and OC spray to take him into custody was excessive because he did not threaten or actively resist the officers. The lawyer would represent the plaintiff at trial or in possible settlement discussions or mediation. Please see Chief Judge Pepper’s summary judgment decision for more information.

  • Wooten v. Dr. Kelley, 20-cv-124-WED. The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a pro se plaintiff (formerly incarcerated) who alleges that the defendant failed to properly treat his pain in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The lawyer would represent the plaintiff at trial. Please see Judge Duffin's summary judgment decision for more information.

  • Wilson v. Alvarado et al., 20-cv-699-WED. The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a pro se plaintiff who alleges that several City of Milwaukee police officers violated his constitutional rights when they unreasonably searched his home and cell phone. The lawyer would represent the plaintiff at trial. Please see Judge Duffin's summary judgment decision and order on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration for more information.

  • King v. DeJesus, et al., 18-cv-744-WCG.  The court is looking for a lawyer to represent a prisoner plaintiff proceeding on Fourteenth Amendment claims based on allegations that officers failed to communicate to health services that emergency room discharge papers indicating that an earplug had been removed from his ear were incorrect and that nursing staff refused to examine his ear or provide him with pain medication despite his persistent assertions that the earplug had not been removed. The lawyer would represent the plaintiff at trial.  Please see Judge Griesbach's summary judgment decision for more information.