United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WALTER J. D. MOFFETT, Plaintiff,
DONALD STRAHOTA, MEISNER, SGT. MYER, B. GREFF, WALKER, ANGELIA KROLL, JANE DOES 1-2, and JOHN DOES 1-2, Defendants.
ADELMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
allowed plaintiff Walter J. D. Moffett to proceed on Eighth
Amendment claims regarding his treatment in segregation at
Waupun Correctional Institution in 2013, as well as
staff's failure to investigate plaintiff's complaints
regarding the conditions. This matter is now before me on
several motions filed by plaintiff and defendants' fully
briefed motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
March 2016, plaintiff filed three motions: a motion for
discovery and production of documents, a motion to file
exhibits, and a motion for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 18- 20.
Plaintiff brings his motion for discovery and production of
documents under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34,
but the motion is actually plaintiff's initial
interrogatories and requests for production of documents to
defendants. The court does not routinely participate in
discovery in civil cases. The parties serve discovery
requests, including interrogatories and requests for
production (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34) on
each other and, subject to objections, the other party
responds. Parties only bring motions regarding discovery
(motions to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37)
if they have a discovery dispute that they are unable to
resolve after attempting in good faith to come to an
agreement. I will deny this motion.
later filed a motion for an order compelling discovery
because defendants had not responded to the interrogatories
and requests for production in his motion for discovery. ECF
No. 38. I will deny this motion because defendants were under
no obligation to respond to the discovery requests plaintiff
included in his motion for discovery. I also note that this
motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a) or Civil Local Rule 37 (E.D. Wis.) because it does not
contain a certification that plaintiff attempted in good
faith to meet and confer with defendants regarding the
discovery dispute before bringing his motion.
in his motion to file exhibits, plaintiff asks me to consider
five pages of exhibits as part of his motion for
reconsideration. I will grant this motion and have considered
these exhibits in support of plaintiff's motion for
motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asks me reconsider
portions of two of my previous orders in this case. He
challenges my denial of his request for a preliminary
injunction, my dismissal of parties at screening, and my
decision not to recruit pro bono counsel for him. He also
asserts that new incidents at Columbia Correctional
Institution (where he is now incarcerated) warrant a
preliminary injunction. Since filing this motion, plaintiff
has submitted a number of other documents detailing his
current troubles at Columbia Correctional Institution, all of
which I have considered as part of plaintiff's motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), I may revise any order
adjudicating fewer than all the claims at any time before the
entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights
and liabilities of all the parties. Motions to reconsider (or
more formally, to revise) an order under Rule 54(b) are
judged by largely the same standards as motions to alter or
amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), “to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal &
Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting
Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp.
656, 665-66 (N.D. Ill. 1976)). “Reconsideration is not
an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected
arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard
during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse
Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90
F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996).
has not shown that I made any manifest errors of law or fact
in my earlier decisions. Nor has he presented newly
discovered evidence that changes the outcome of those
motions. With regard to my decision to dismiss
plaintiff's original complaint (thereby dismissing some
defendants) under George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th
Cir. 2007) and my decision not to recruit pro bono counsel
for him, plaintiff makes no substantive arguments undermining
arguments regarding my decision not to enter a preliminary
injunction revolve around his recent and current conditions
of confinement at Columbia Correctional Institution. Yet his
claims in this case relate to events that occurred in 2013 at
Waupun Correctional Institution. Plaintiff's claims
regarding Columbia are entirely separate claims, and he may
file a new complaint if he believes they violate his
constitutional rights, either as impermissible conditions of
confinement under the Eighth Amendment or as retaliation
under the First Amendment for filing and litigating this
case. However, plaintiff may not proceed on these new claims
as part of this case, and the allegations are not an
appropriate basis for a preliminary injunction in this case.
See Hashim v. Hamblin, Case No. 14-cv-1265, 2016 WL
297465, at *4 (E.D. Wis. January 22, 2016)
(“Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief are
not connected to the claims he is proceeding on in this case.
He may not seek relief in connection with these claims in
this lawsuit.”). I will deny plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration as it relates to my prior orders in this
motion for reconsideration, plaintiff also asks me to add
Belinda Schrubbe as a defendant. I noted in my order
screening plaintiff's amended complaint that he made a
number of claims against her but that he had not named her as
a defendant and I could not add her on my own motion.
Plaintiff asserts that he inadvertently omitted her name from
the list of defendants and asks to add her as a defendant at
this time. I will grant this portion of plaintiff's
motion, add Belinda Schrubbe as a defendant, and order
service of plaintiff's amended complaint on her.
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
April 13, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment along with their answer. They submit that they are
entitled to judgment because plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. That motion is fully briefed.
the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust “such administrative
remedies as are available” before bringing suit
“with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 .
. . or any other federal law.” 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a). Unexhausted claims are procedurally barred from
consideration. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93
(2006). The exhaustion requirement is interpreted strictly;
“[a] prisoner must comply with the ...