United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
October 3, 2016, the defendant Sergeant Russell Schneider
(“Schneider”) filed a motion for summary judgment
as to all of the plaintiff Ronald Jerome Beal's
(“Beal”) claims. (Docket #53). Beal's
response to the motion was due on or before November 2, 2016.
See Civil L. R. 56(b)(2). On November 10, 2016,
having not received such a response, the Court ordered Beal
to submit one within seven days. (Docket #58). On November
16, 2016, Beal submitted a nine-page brief in opposition to
Schneider's motion and seventy-one pages of exhibits,
which included an appellate brief, various medical documents,
and documents relating to Beal's internal complaint about
Schneider's alleged misconduct. (Brief, Docket #59;
Exhibits, Docket #59-1). Beal did not offer a response to
Schneider's statement of facts or his own additional
statement of facts.
has been informed of the requirements of the federal and
local rules regarding summary judgment at least twice: by
attachments to the Court's trial scheduling order, and by
Schneider's own summary judgment motion. (Docket #39 and
#53). He has chosen to ignore these rules by failing to file
anything which could be construed as a response to
Schneider's statement of facts which would comply with
Local Rule 56(b)(2)(B). Though the Court is required to
liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's filings,
it cannot act as his lawyer; the Court cannot and will not
determine which facts Beal should dispute, and what evidence
should support those disputes. The Seventh Circuit explained
the problem in Smith:
A district court is not required to “wade through
improper denials and legal argument in search of a genuinely
disputed fact.” Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd.
of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). And a
mere disagreement with the movant's asserted facts is
inadequate if made without reference to specific supporting
material. Edward E. Gillen Co. v. City of Lake
Forest, 3 F.3d 192, 196 (7th Cir. 1993). In short,
“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles
buried in briefs.” United States v. Dunkel,
927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991). Smith's
summary-judgment materials were woefully deficient in either
responding adequately to the defendants' statement or in
setting forth additional facts with appropriate citations to
the record. As such, Smith's purportedly good intentions
aside, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
deeming admitted and only considering the defendants'
statement of material facts.
Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).
Like Smith, no matter Beal's intentions, his
utter failure to comply with the rules of procedure means
that the Court has no choice but to find that Schneider's
facts are undisputed for purposes of deciding the motion.
RELEVANT FACTS 
times relevant, Beal was a prisoner at the Kettle Moraine
Correctional Facility, and Schneider was a correctional
officer at that institution. On April 30 2013, Schneider was
working in Beal's housing unit during lunchtime. Hot dogs
were being served that day. Juan Rodriquez
(“Rodriquez”), Beal's fellow inmate, asked
Schneider if he was going to finish eating his lunch.
Schneider said yes and then stated “if you took
Beal's hot dog and put it in your mouth, he's not
gonna be happy.” See (Docket #56 at ¶ 5).
Though Beal immediately laughed, Schneider recognized the
comment's sexual overtones. Schneider did not intend to
convey any sexual implication and apologized to Rodriquez.
Another inmate, Brian Anthony (“Anthony”), was
not part of the conversation and Schneider felt he was too
far away to hear what was said.
nevertheless filed a complaint about Schneider's comment;
Beal did not. Rodriquez identified Beal as a witness to the
comment. As part of the prison's investigation of
Rodriquez's complaint, Beal was interviewed later that
same day. Beal answered various questions of the
investigators, including the following:
Did [Schneider] say something bizarre today?
(by Beal): I'm gonna be honest. Rodriguez asked for
another tray and Sgt. Point at me at [sic] stated “Put
his weenie in your mouth and you'll smile.” I was
sitting there waiting for another glass of water.
Q: What's your opinion of that comment?
A: Sgt. Schneider is one of the best Sgt.'s we have, He
just like to talk to people. He shouldn't have said that
outta his mouth.
Q: How did you take it?
A: It was wrong. But I didn't tell him that.
Q: What did you think weenie meant?
A: I was thinking hotdogs cause that's ...