Buy This Entire Record For
Cole v. Baldwin
United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
February 28, 2014
JAMIE LEE COLE, Plaintiff,
JOHN BALDWIN, STEVE DRAHAZOL, LORI COOK, KATIE DEAL, DAVE BAUMGARTNER, NETTY RINSHAW, ANNE BABBE, MONICA ACKLEY, JIM MCKINNY, BRIAN SPANNAGLE, CONTRACT ATTORNEY IN FORT DODGE, DR. KELLER, SGT. PALMER, JASON HAWKINS, MAJOR WAGERS, CAPTAIN MAYO, CONTRACT ATTORNEY IN ANAMOSA, CONTRACT ATTORNEY IN OAKDALE, Defendants.
DONALD E. O'BRIEN, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Jamie Lee Cole's (hereinafter Mr. Cole) pro se Motion to Appoint Counsel, Docket No. 14, and pro se Motion to Add Parties, Docket No. 15.
On January 31, 2014, Mr. Cole filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint, Docket No. 1, against the above named Defendants (both known and unknown), along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Docket No. 2. Mr. Cole alleged numerous violations against the above named Defendants, which include an Iowa State Court Judge and a number of his previous and current attorneys. On February 21, 2014, this Court entered an Initial Review Order dismissing Mr. Cole's Complaint. Docket No. 9. In that Order, the Court found that Mr. Cole had failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. Id., p. 19.
On February 24, 2014, Mr. Cole filed a pro se Motion to Clarify. Docket No. 11. In that Motion he stated:
I received back from the [Clerk of Court's Office] a page about [Local Rule 10] and there having to be a 1 inch [margin] at the top of all documents... I did that here, but when I tried to have the [librarian] do my copies of it she didn't want to do it because there wasn't a 1 inch margin all the way around...
Docket No. 11.
On February 25, 2014, the Court entered an Order, Docket No. 12, stating:
the Court notes that it did not consider Local Rule 10 when it ruled on Mr. Cole's pro se Complaint. The fact that Mr. Cole's Complaint, Docket No. 1, did not conform to the local formatting rules was not held against Mr. Cole. The Court considered Mr. Cole's Complaint on its merits and determined that Mr. Cole had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, Mr. Cole's present Motion to Clarify is not necessary. The Court considered Mr. Cole's Complaint on its merits. For that reason, Mr. Cole's pro se Motion to Clarify, Docket No. 11, is denied as moot.
Docket No. 12, p. 2-3.
II. PRESENT MOTIONS
On February 27, 2014, Mr. Cole filed the present Motions to Appoint Counsel and to Add Parties. Docket Nos. 14 and 15. In the former of those two documents, Mr. Cole requests the Court appoint an attorney to his case. As the Court discussed in its prior Order(s), Mr. Cole has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, his request to have an attorney appointed is moot and must be denied.
In the Motion to Add Parties, Mr. Cole requests Chad Brownfield and Christina Carter be added as Defendants. According to Docket No. 15, Mr. Brownfield is a staff psychologist at the Iowa Medical and Classification center, and Ms. Carter is his associate. Mr. Cole alleges that Mr. Brownfield and Ms. Carter refused to help him ...