United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 33), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 39), AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS (DKT. NO.
PAMELA PEPPER, United States District Judge
plaintiff, who is representing himself, filed this lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendant had
violated his constitutional rights. On November 14, 2016, the
defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 33.
That same day, the plaintiff filed his own motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 39. For the reasons discussed below, the
court will grant the defendant's motion and deny the
March 15, 2016, the court issued a screening order, allowing
the plaintiff to proceed on only one claim: a “First
Amendment retaliation claim against Dean Newport.” Dkt.
No. 8 at 9. That claim relates to the plaintiff's
allegation that the defendant retaliated against him when the
defendant orchestrated a search of the plaintiff's cell
and seized the plaintiff's legal records, after learning
that the plaintiff had attempted to initiate a John Doe
investigation against him in state court. Both parties
provided the court with a good deal of information that is
irrelevant to that claim; the court recounts below only those
facts relevant to that claim.
2008, defendant Milwaukee Police Officer Dean Newport was
assigned to a joint task force involving the Milwaukee Police
Department and the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Dkt. No.
34 at ¶1. In 2011, the defendant was deputized as a
federal task force officer with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
and Firearms. Id. at ¶13.
obtained by the task force led the task force to the
plaintiff. Id. at ¶4. On March 20, 2009, the
Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office filed a
complaint against the plaintiff. State v. Cannon,
Case No. 2009CF001337, available at
https://wcca/wicourts.gov, id. at ¶5
(“the 2009 case”). The case was assigned to
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael Guolee.
Id. at ¶6.
February 24, 2011, while the 2009 case was pending, the
District Attorney's Office filed another compliant
against the defendant. State v. Cannon, Case No.
2011CF000924, available at https://wcca/wicourts.gov
(“the 2011 case”). This case, too, was assigned
to Judge Guolee. Id. at ¶8. Both cases resulted
from the work of the joint task force. Id. at
¶9. The defendant indicates that because the 2011 case
involved wiretap evidence, Judge Guolee ordered the record
sealed at the outset of the case. Id. at ¶12.
during the pendency of the 2009 case, the plaintiff began a
sexual relationship with Judge Guolee's court clerk,
Tammy Baldwin. Id. at ¶14. Ms. Baldwin had
access to the court's files for both the 2009 and 2011
cases, including documents that had been filed under seal.
Id. at ¶15.
March 23, 2012, the plaintiff entered a guilty plea in the
2009 case. Id. at ¶16. Judge Guolee sentenced
the plaintiff to a two-year term of confinement, followed by
a two-year term of extended supervision. Id. at
¶17. In July 2012, the 2011 case was reassigned to
another Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. Id. at
defendant states that on October 3, 2012, the plaintiff sent
four documents, under a cover letter, to Milwaukee County
Circuit Court Chief Judge Jeffrey Kremers. Id. at
¶19. The first document, which bore no case number, was
titled, “Notice of and Petitioner [sic] Seeking Secret
‘John Doe' Investigation against Local Official
Judge for Misconduct While Serving in Public Office.”
Id. at ¶20. The second document, which bore the
caption of the 2009 case, was titled, “Petition for a
‘John Doe' Investigation.” Id. at
¶¶22, 23. In this document, the plaintiff argued
that the court should vacate the sentence imposed in the 2009
case. Id. at ¶24. The plaintiff
alleged that he and Judge Guolee both had been engaged in a
sexual relationship with Ms. Baldwin, and that Judge Guolee
had imposed the sentence out of jealousy. Id. at
¶25. The document also contained twenty exhibits-copies
of letters and envelopes sent between the plaintiff and Ms.
Baldwin. Id. at ¶¶26, 27. The letters
evidenced a close, sexual relationship between the two, and
demonstrated that Ms. Baldwin had been passing information
from the court's chambers to the plaintiff. Id.
at ¶¶27, 28.
third document, which bore the caption of the 2011 case, was
titled “Petition Seeking Secret John Doe Against Six
Named Officials For Criminal Acts and Other Misconduct and
Conspiracy While Serving as Law Officials and Officers of the
Court.” Id. at ¶¶29, 30. This
document asserted that the defendant and others had violated
the plaintiff's civil rights during their criminal
investigation. Id. at ¶31.
final document, which bore the caption of the 2009 case, was
titled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate
Sentence.” Id. at ¶¶32, 33. This
motion repeated the plaintiff's allegations regarding his
and Judge Guolee's rival relationship with Ms. Baldwin.
Id. at ¶34. The motion did not mention the
defendant, and it did not refer to a John Doe investigation.
Id. at ¶35. Because the document was not marked
confidential, the Milwaukee County Clerk's Office
docketed it on October 5, 2012, docketing it in the 2009 case in
accordance with its caption. Id. at ¶36;
see State v. Cannon, Case No. 2009CF001337,
available at https://wcca.wicourts.gov. dkt. entries
plaintiff argues that he did not intend for the
Clerk's Office to docket the motion to vacate; he wanted
the motion to be kept confidential. Dkt. No. 56 at
¶¶33, 35, 36.
result of the plaintiff's motion to vacate, the Milwaukee
County District Attorney's Office and the Milwaukee
County Clerk's Office opened investigations. Dkt. No. 34
at ¶37. The District Attorney's Office was concerned
that Ms. Baldwin may have disclosed confidential, sealed
documents to the plaintiff, including documents that ...