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.

Williams v. Stauchie

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

January 9, 2017

TRAVIS DELANEY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE STAUCHIE, MR. ISAAC, ALVIN BIRDICK, MEGAN KEEFER, and GUARD RAY, Defendants.

         DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 107), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO DEPOSE WITNESSES (DKT. NO. 109), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE (DKT. NO. 110), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 111), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 112), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY (DKT. NO. 116), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 117), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 123), AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 126)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         The plaintiff, Travis Delaney Williams, is proceeding pro se on excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical need claims against the defendants.

         A. Background

         On December 14, 2015, defendant Megan Keefer filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 48. The Kenosha County defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2016. Dkt. No. 57. Before and after these motions for summary judgment, the parties filed numerous other motions.

         On March 14, 2016, in an attempt to get the case back on track, the court entered an order resolving all of the outstanding motions other than the defendants' motions for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 78. In that order, the court directed the plaintiff to sign and return an authorization for the release of medical records. Id. at 24-25. The court also directed the plaintiff to file his response to the Kenosha County defendants' motion for summary judgment on or before May 16, 2016. Id. at 26. The court received the plaintiff's response to the Kenosha County defendants' motion for summary judgment on March 24, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 79-89.

         On April 7, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to recuse itself. Dkt. No. 94. The court denied this motion on April 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 95.

         The plaintiff then filed a flurry of motions. On April 25, 2016, the court received a motion to compel. Dkt. No. 107. On April 27, 2016, the court received a motion to appoint counsel to depose witnesses, a motion to submit evidence, and a motion for reconsideration of the court's recusal decision. Dkt. Nos. 109-111.

         On May 10, 2016, the court received another motion to compel. Dkt. No. 112. Two weeks later, on May 24, 2016, the court received a motion to stay and a motion to supplement the plaintiff's motion to compel. Dkt. Nos. 116-17. The plaintiff filed yet another motion to compel on June 17, 2016. Dkt. No. 123. Three days later, he filed another motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 126.

         While these motions were coming in, the parties completed briefing on both of the motions for summary judgment. To the extent that they may affect the motions for summary judgment, the court will resolve the outstanding motions in this order and issue separate orders regarding the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

         B. Discussion

         1. Motions to Compel (107, 112, 117, 123)

         The plaintiff has filed three motions to compel, and a motion to supplement his motion to compel. These motions generally deal with the same materials, including production of video footage, grievances, and personnel records for the defendants-particularly disciplinary records for Isaac and Burdick. It is unclear whether the plaintiff ever served proper discovery requests for any of these items. None of the motions includes a certification that he made a good faith attempt to confer with the defendants before filing the motions, even though the court's March 14, 2016 order described the requirements for filing a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and Civil Local Rule 37. Dkt. No. 78 at 14. The plaintiff suggests that his ongoing communications with the defendants' attorneys regarding the case satisfy the requirement, but they do not. The court will deny the plaintiff's motions to compel and his motion to supplement his motion to compel.

         The court notes that ultimately the defendants provided many of the materials at issue in the plaintiff's motions. The defendants retain their objections to the defendants' disciplinary histories and other documents from the defendants' personnel files. The court notes that the defendants are not responsible for the plaintiff's being unable to have a DVD in his cell. If the plaintiff has claims remaining after the court decides the ...


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.