Jermaine Hampton v. Mark Richter, 20-2435

Hampton, a Wisconsin inmate, was transferred to the Sheboygan County Detention Center and was attacked by another inmate, suffering hand injuries and broken teeth; he alleges staff knew of threats and failed to protect him and later refused medical care.
Hampton sued Sheboygan staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and filed three motions asking the court to recruit counsel; the court denied all three motions.
During discovery Hampton repeatedly sought documents, filed seven motions to compel (all denied), missed the discovery deadline citing a COVID-19 lockdown, and requested two extensions; the court granted a limited extension and then denied a second extension.
Four days after the second extension was denied, Hampton moved to dismiss his case without prejudice so he could refile later with counsel; the district court instead dismissed the case with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) because defendants had expended resources.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded because the district court failed to give Hampton an opportunity to withdraw his voluntary-dismissal motion; the court affirmed the denials of Hampton’s motions for appointed counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
District court dismissed case with prejudice after Hampton moved to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice	Hampton sought dismissal without prejudice to refile later with counsel; he still had time to respond to summary judgment	Defs argued dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because they expended substantial time and resources	Vacated and remanded: court abused discretion by entering dismissal with prejudice without permitting Hampton to withdraw his motion; dismissal without prejudice was a non-frivolous option
Denial of motions to recruit counsel	Hampton argued lack of legal training, complexity, hand injury limited his ability to litigate, and COVID lockdown hindered discovery	Defs argued Hampton was competent to proceed pro se; his filings were coherent and issues straightforward	Affirmed: district reasonably applied Pruitt factors and did not abuse discretion in denying counsel; Hampton may renew on remand
Denial/limits on discovery extensions and effect on case	Hampton said lockdown prevented obtaining needed discovery and sought more time	Defs said discovery had closed and court had already granted a limited extension; Hampton ignored limits	Court granted a targeted extension, denied the second motion; appellate decision did not find these rulings an abuse that would cure the dismissal error

Carter v. City of Alton, 922 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2019) (district must permit plaintiff to withdraw voluntary-dismissal motion before dismissing with prejudice)
Babcock v. McDaniel, 148 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 1998) (same principle: opportunity to withdraw required)
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (factors district courts must consider when deciding whether to recruit counsel)
Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2010) (timing and stage-of-case considerations in counsel requests)
Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2018) (assessing case complexity relative to procedural stage for counsel requests)
Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2013) (accrual principles for § 1983 claims)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (federal courts borrow state statute-of-limitations law for § 1983 claims)
Gutter v. Seamandel, 308 N.W.2d 403 (Wis. 1981) (state-law rule on nonretroactivity of limitations-period amendments)