Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Garth-Dickens

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

November 29, 2016

ENNIS LEE BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN GARTH-DICKENS, LT. REAVES, LT. BRIGGS, LT. MONTANO, LT. ANDRYKOWSKI, LT. ARTUS, CO SHERRER, DEPUTY MCCOY, DEPUTY SCHROEDER, SGT.SAWCZUK, NURSE PRACTITIONER DOE, DR. JANE DOE, NURSE DOES, SOCIAL WORKER DOES, CO JOHN DOES, AND DEPUTY JOHN DOES, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND ADD PARTIES (DKT. NO. 28); DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE (DKT. NO. 31); DENYING AS MOOT THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 33); DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AMENDMENT OF CLERICAL ERRORS BY CLERK OF COURT (DKT. NO. 38); DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SEEKING THE COURT'S ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING THE NAMES OF DEFENDANTS AND OBTAINING THEIR DEPOSITIONS (DKT. NO. 40), GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (DKT. NO. 43); AND GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULE (DKT. NO. 44)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge

         The plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution, alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights when he was confined at the Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility (MCCJF). Dkt. No. 10. On June 30, 2016, the court screened the amended complaint, and identified the six claims upon which the plaintiff could proceed in this case.[1]Since that time, the parties have filed several motions, which the court addresses here.

         1. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend and Add Parties

         The plaintiff has filed a motion to amend and add parties. Dkt. No. 28. First, he asks to amend the complaint to add "policy" claims against Milwaukee County and Sheriff David Clarke. IcL at 1-2. The plaintiff alleges that Milwaukee County policy permitted violations of his and other pretrial detainees' procedural due process rights. IcL at 1. He also states that jail policy provided for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in that it deprived inmates of mattresses, showers, adequate food, phones, and due process hearings. IcL The plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Clarke imposed these policies. Id. at 2.

         Second, the plaintiff identifies some of the Doe defendants, and he asks the court to add the newly identified defendants as parties. Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff identifies the Jane Doe Nurses as Nurse Vicki, Nurse Brenda and Nurse Brenda (the court will refer to the Nurses Brenda as Nurse Brenda 1 and Nurse Brenda 2); he identifies the Social Worker Does as Malinda and Sara; he identifies the correctional officer John Does as Officer Wilborn, Officer Mizdiak, Officer Hubber, Officer Yang, Officer Webb, Officer Hannah, Officer Ruiz, Officer Mercado, Officer Briggs, and Officer Stephen; and he identifies Major Jane Doe and Major Ambrose. Id. at 2-3, 4. The plaintiff also asks the court to assist him in obtaining the name of Dr. Jane Doe. Id. at 4.

         Third, the plaintiff asks to add several new claims against existing defendants. Id. at 3. He alleges that on August 1, 2013, Officer Mercado and Nurse Brenda stood by, not assisting the plaintiff or getting help for him, when he continually rammed his head into the door while on “suicide watch.” Id. On August 3, 2013, Dr. Jane Doe visited the plaintiff as his cell. Id. The plaintiff had visible knots and bruises from an attempted suicide. Id. Dr. Jane Doe failed to get the plaintiff medical attention and refused to address the reason he was not placed in “special needs.” Id. The plaintiff also alleges that Major Ambrose (former Major Jane Doe) ordered him to be kept in segregation after March 29, 2013, even though Ambrose knew that the plaintiff had urgent mental health needs, including issues with suicide attempts. Id. at 4.

         The court will update the docket to reflect the identification of the Doe defendants. With regard to the plaintiff's request for the court's assistance in identifying Dr. Jane Doe, the plaintiff should let the court know what steps he has taken so far to identify her, including whether he requested her name from the defendants and what response, if any, he received from them. This will help the court to assist the plaintiff, if needed.

         With regard to the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to add new claims, the plaintiff has not filed a proposed amended complaint. The court's Local Rules require that any amendment to a pleading must reproduce the entire pleading as amended. Civil L.R. 15(a) (E.D. Wis.). The plaintiff must file the proposed amended complaint as an attachment to the motion to amend. Civil L.R. 15(b) (E.D. Wis.). Because he has not attached a full, proposed amended complaint, the court will deny the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.

         2. Plaintiff's Motion for Substitution of Judge

         The plaintiff has filed a motion for substitution of judge. Dkt. No. 31. He states that he does not believe he will receive a fair trial and unbiased decision from Judge Pepper. Id. at 1. The plaintiff also states that Judge Pepper contradicted herself in two of the plaintiff's prior cases, and misapplied Supreme Court rulings. Id. He cites to two of his prior cases, Brown v. Hicks, Case No. 15-cv-509-PP (E.D. Wis.), Brown v. Milwaukee Cnty. Public Defenders Office, Case No. 16-cv-632-PP (E.D. Wis.). The plaintiff goes on to explain the errors he believes Judge Pepper made in those cases. Dkt. No. 31 at 1-2. The plaintiff has appealed both cases to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

         Section 455(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code requires a federal judge to “disqualify [her]self in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The plaintiff's motion does not allege that Judge Pepper is not impartial, nor does he argue that she relied upon knowledge acquired outside his judicial proceedings, or displayed deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. See id. at 556. Rather, he argues that Judge Pepper got it wrong when she made the decisions in those other cases. That is not a basis for disqualifying a judge; that is a basis for appealing the judge's rulings, and the plaintiff has done that in both of his other cases. The court will deny plaintiff's request for disqualification under § 455.

         3. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

         On October 28, 2016, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dkt. No. 33. The plaintiff filed a response to the motion on November 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 41.

         On November 3, 2016, the defendants filed an amended joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which included a request that the court stay further proceedings.[2] Dkt. No. 43. The defendants attached to the motion the text of Civil Local Rules 56 and 7, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), (d), and (e). In addition to dismissal, the defendants request ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.