United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO.
131) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO.
132) AND DENYING MEGAN KEEFER'S ORIGINAL MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 48)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge
plaintiff, Travis Delaney Williams, is proceeding pro
se on excessive force and deliberate indifference to
serious medical need claims against the defendants. The
plaintiff has filed a fourth motion to appoint counsel, dkt.
no. 131, and a motion to compel, dkt. no. 132. The court will
also address defendant Megan Keefer's two pending motions
for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 48, 133.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
October 3, 2016, the plaintiff filed his fourth motion to
appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 131. In this motion, the plaintiff
notes that he filed a lawsuit in July 2016 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
regarding his inability to access the law library and law
clerks at Columbia Correctional Institution. Id. at
1. He also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in
that case. Id. The plaintiff states that he received
help to conduct discovery, that he has a sixth grade
education, and that he is mentally unstable. Id. at
2. For these reasons, the plaintiff asks this court to
appoint counsel to assist him. Id.
January 9, 2017, the court issued an order ruling on several
of the plaintiff's prior motions, including two previous
motions to appoint counsel. See Dkt. No. 148 at 4-5
(denying motion to appoint counsel at Dkt. No. 109 and motion
to appoint counsel at Dkt. No. 126). The court will deny this
motion, as well. If, after the court has decided the pending
motions for summary judgment, there are issues remaining
which the plaintiff believes to be so complicated that he
cannot litigate them himself, he may file another motion.
Motion to Compel
October 13, 2016, the court received from the plaintiff a
motion to compel, asking the court to order the defendants to
produce “all detainee names & their assigned cell
in the Kenosha County pretrial facility X-Block who was
assigned in X-Block on August 18th & 19th 2014 from 12:
noon pm on August 18th 2014 through 8 pm August 19th
2014.” Dkt. No. 132 at 1. He claims that he has asked
the defendants twice to produce these names, that the names
have not been produced, and then writes, “lets CONFER!
response, the defendants acknowledged that they received the
request for production of documents, dated September 30,
2016. Dkt. No. 134 at 2. While Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2) gives
parties thirty days to respond to requests for production of
documents, the defendants explain that the plaintiff filed
his motion to compel on October 13, 2016-only fourteen days
after the date on his document request. Id. The
defendants indicate that they responded to the
plaintiff's request on October 17, 2016-four days after
he filed it-and provided him all the documents he requested.
Id. The motion to compel, therefore, is moot.
court also notes that by dated his document request September
30, 2016, and then filing a motion to compel fourteen days
later, the plaintiff did not comply with the requirement in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2) that he give the defendants thirty days
to respond. And the plaintiff's motion to compel did not
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and Civil
Local Rule 37, because the motion did not contain any
certification that the plaintiff met and conferred with the
defendants in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute
before he filed his motion. The court has informed the
plaintiff of this requirement in other cases in which he has
filed motions to compel. The court will deny the
plaintiff's motion to compel.
Nurse Keefer's Motions for Summary Judgment
December 14, 2015, defendant Meghan Keefer filed her original
motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 48. At the time, she
did not have access to the plaintiff's medical records.
On October 18, 2016, Keefer filed a renewed motion for
summary judgment, indicating that she had obtained the
records and that they were consistent with the information
already filed. Dkt. No. 133. She asks the court to decide her
motion based on the pleadings already filed, and once against
provides the plaintiff with the notice required by Civil
Local Rule 56(a)(1). Dkt. No. 133. The plaintiff supplemented
his response after receiving Keefer's renewed motion for
summary judgment, dkt. nos. 139-144, and Keefer filed a reply
brief on November 7, 2016, dkt. no. 147. The court will deny
Keefer's original motion for summary judgment, dkt. no.
48, and consider decide the renewed motion for summary
judgment (dkt. no. 133), supported by the brief and
supporting documents she filed in support of her original
court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff's fourth
motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 131. The court DENIES the