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. Leslie

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

February 13, 2017

TRAVIS DELANEY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE LESLIE, NURSE TOM, PATRICK J. NOONAN, LIEUTENANT FRIEND, SERGEANT MELISSA A. GONZALES, CAPTAIN WEARING, DEREK BERGUM, NURSE NICOLE, TROOPER JOHN DOE, CARRIE L. BELLEW, and NURSE PRACTITIONER JANE DOE, Defendants.

         DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT RULING (DKT. NO. 73), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT RULING (DKT. NO. 74), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DKT. NO. 75), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY (DKT. NO. 76), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE UNDER RULE 4(DKT. NO. 77), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES (DKT. NO. 78), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE (DKT. NO. 81), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 98), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEF (DKT. NO. 100), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DKT. NO. 101), GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 115), GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 117), DIRECTING RACINE COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY MATERIALS ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 16, 2017, DIRECTING MEDICAL DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY MATERIALS ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 23, 2017, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE HIS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DEREK BERGUM'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OR BEFORE MARCH 1, 2017

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         I. MOTIONS REGARDING DISCOVERY

         On September 19, 2016, the court entered an order resolving motions outstanding as of that date. Dkt. No. 72. Ten days later, on September 29, 2016, the court received four more motions from the plaintiff. Dkt. Nos. 73-76.

         The plaintiff filed a single document (which has been docketed twice at dkt. nos'. 73 and 74), entitled “Motion for a Court Ruling & Order Ruling Michael Lanzdorf Motion to Compel as Moot.” Dkt. No. 73-74. In this motion, the plaintiff states that on September 13, 2016, he “was presented” with two documents: a medical release authorization form, and a letter from counsel for the Racine County Jail defendants, which the plaintiff alleges did not come through the United States mail. Dkt. No. 73 at 1. The letter, according to the plaintiff, instructed him to sign the release form or face a motion to compel. Id. The plaintiff denies that he refused to execute a previous medical release form, asserting that instead, he had sent the first form back to defense counsel with a request that defense counsel fill in the names the facilities counsel intended to provide with the form. Id. at 1-2. He also indicates that he told defense counsel that he would not sign the form with a pencil. Id. at 2. The plaintiff suggests that his refusal to sign the authorization resulted in institutional sanctions, including segregation and the institution's refusal to transfer him to a medium security facility. Id. at 3. He demands that the court deem defense counsel's motion to compel (which, as of the date the court received the plaintiff's motion, defense counsel hadn't filed) as moot, and to order defense counsel not to fax documents to the prison staff. Id.

         The court will deny the motions at dkt. nos. 73 and 74, because the defendants never filed a motion to compel. There is nothing for the court to rule on or deem as moot. The court also notes that there is nothing in the rules requiring a party to send discovery documents by mail, rather than by fax.

         The plaintiff also filed a motion to terminate and strike his deposition, which took place on August 16, 2016. Dkt. No. 75. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' counsel conspired with prison staff to deny the plaintiff documents, to place the plaintiff in segregation, and to issue threats by way of staff messengers. Id. The plaintiff suggests that counsel “constantly belittled” him during the deposition by making statements like, “I ask the question here, ” and had prison staff in the room at all times. Id.

         The plaintiff does not support any of these assertions with any evidence. There is nothing in the plaintiff's motion which indicates that defense counsel conducted the deposition “in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3)(A). It is correct that in a deposition, it is the deposing party that gets to ask the questions, not the person being deposed. The court will deny the plaintiff's motion to strike. Dkt. No. 75.

         The final motion the court received on September 29 was a motion for extension of discovery. Dkt. No. 76. At the bottom of the motion, the plaintiff listed the date of July 29, 2016-two months prior to the date the court received the motion. The caption of the motion indicates that the plaintiff was bringing the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(h). Id. In the motion, the plaintiff asserts that he “was conspired against”-he does not say by whom-and locked in his cell for twenty-five days due to activity in Case No. 14-cv-792. Id. He indicates that he needs time to locate and confer with an inmate who can help him write a proper discovery request and help him locate the agency who can identify the John Doe trooper. Id.

         Rule 62(h) does not apply to this case or the plaintiff's motion. That rule gives the court authority to stay the enforcement of a final judgment against one or more parties until the court enters a later judgment regarding the remainder of the case. There has been no judgment in this case; the court cannot stay enforcement of a judgment that doesn't exist.

         The deadline for the parties to complete discovery in this case was November 21, 2016. Dkt. No. 72. The date the plaintiff put on the motion-July 29, 2016-would have been four months before the expiration of the discovery deadline. But the plaintiff does not explain why he needs an extension of a discovery deadline that won't expire for four months. The court didn't receive the motion until September 29, 2016-still, that was two months before the discovery deadline. Again, the plaintiff does not explain why he would need an extension of a deadline that would not expire for another two months, just to find time to talk to another inmate.

         The court will deny all four of these motions.

         II. MOTIONS REGARDING ADDING PARTIES

         The plaintiff's motion for service under Rule 4 (dkt. no. 77), filed October 3, 2016, and his motion to expedite (dkt. no. 81), filed November 10, 2016, both ask the court to serve previously unnamed defendants the plaintiff now has identified. The court's April 19, 2016 scheduling order required all parties to amend pleadings by June 22, 2016. Dkt. No. 51. The court advised the plaintiff that this deadline “include[d] the identification of the parties previously identified by only their first names or ...


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.