United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ANTHONY H. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
LORA BLASIUS and DR. ENRIQUE LUY, Defendants.
Adelman United States District Judge
Anthony Williams, is proceeding pro se on Eighth
Amendment claims that defendants delayed his treatment for a
knee injury and failed to comply with other doctors'
orders regarding his treatment. He is also proceeding on an
Eighth Amendment claim that the State has a policy or custom
of not following other doctor's orders regarding
prisoners. Before me now are various motions filed by
22, 2016, the court received plaintiff's motion to amend
his complaint, a proposed amended complaint, a motion to add
parties, and a motion to create a class of correctional
officer defendants for plaintiff's policy claim. A couple
of weeks later, the court received a motion to add parties
and a proposed second amended complaint. I will deny as moot
plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and his first
motion to add parties because plaintiff's second motion
to add parties superseded those motions.
will deny plaintiff's motion to create a class of
correctional officer defendants. No class is necessary
because plaintiff's claims against the named defendants
in their official capacities are against the State itself.
See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 71 (1989). If I conclude that the State had such a
policy and that it violated plaintiff's constitutional
rights, any injunctive relief ending the policy would apply
throughout the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. See
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). There
is no need to name all correctional officers who have taken
part in enforcing the policy or may in the future.
grant plaintiff's second motion to add parties (ECF No.
17) and screen plaintiff's proposed second amended
complaint (ECF No. 16) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Plaintiff has stated Eighth Amendment claims
against defendants Luy, Blasius, Meuller, Murphy,
Mahillither, Weilly, and Einwalther regarding his delayed
treatment for a knee injury and failure to comply with other
doctors' orders regarding his treatment. Each of these
defendants was personally involved in plaintiff's
treatment in some way.
will allow plaintiff to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim
that the State has a policy or custom of not following orders
regarding prisoners from doctors outside the prison.
Plaintiff may proceed on this claim against each of the
defendants in their official capacities.
order service of plaintiff's second amended complaint and
enter a scheduling order after defendants file an answer to
this second amended complaint.
turn to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
He asserts that he had not been scheduled for a timely follow
up appointment with an outside doctor regarding muscle
weakness in his left quadriceps. Plaintiff asks the court to
order the prison to schedule the follow up appointment. He
also suggests that defendants falsified and re-dated
documents regarding plaintiff's treatment in 2014.
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff
is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek
v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)).
The injunctive relief plaintiff seeks, a follow up
appointment in 2016, does not relate to his underlying claims
regarding the treatment he received in 2014. As a result, I
cannot grant plaintiff the injunctive relief he seeks.
See Hashim v. Hamblin, 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.” (citations omitted)).
I will address plaintiff's letter brief docketed as a
motion for extension of time. In the letter, plaintiff asks
me to accept his response to defendants' answer. I will
deny this motion as moot because the response has already
been filed and therefore was already “accepted.”
However, I note that such a response is unnecessary. When
defendants filed their answer to his second amended
complaint, plaintiff should not file a response.
reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to
amend complaint (Docket #12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to add party
(Docket #12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to create a class
of correctional ...