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.

Burgess v. Boughton

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

May 1, 2018

EDWARD BURGESS, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY BOUGHTON, DANIEL WINKLESKI, JOLINDA WATERMAN, TANYA BONSON, SONYA ANDERSON, CARRIE SUTTER, ELLEN RAY, JAMES LABELLE, EMILY DAVIDSON, CATHY A. JESS, LEBBEUS BROWN, REBECCA FELDMAN, BETH EDGE, and JON E. LITSCHER, Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER

          JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge

         Pro se plaintiff Edward Burgess is a prisoner in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) currently housed at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). He is proceeding on Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, claims under the Rehabilitation Act, and state-law medical malpractice claims concerning defendant prison officials' alleged refusal to allow him access to shoes that adequately treat his plantar fasciitis. Several motions are now pending before the court. I will deny Burgess's motion for reconsideration of my order denying preliminary injunctive relief. As for defendants' motions for summary judgment and Burgess's motion to exclude expert evidence, I will order the parties to supplement their briefing on key factual issues. Once they have done so, I will issue a summary judgment opinion.

         A. Motion for reconsideration

          First, Burgess has moved for reconsideration of my order denying preliminary injunctive relief. Dkt. 153. In a March 6, 2018 order, I denied Burgess's motion for preliminary injunctive relief concerning his requests for medical treatment, threats to commit suicide, and outgoing mail. Dkt. 149. I explained that Burgess's history of mental health treatment and attempts at self-harm did not show that Burgess would suffer future irreparable harm absent an immediate injunction. Now, Burgess has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Dkt. 153. Specifically, he asks again that I order defendants to transfer him to another facility. His argument focuses on the seriousness of his mental health needs.

         I will deny Burgess's motion for reconsideration for the same reason I denied his original motion for preliminary injunctive relief: Burgess still has not pointed to evidence that he faces immediate danger unless the court acts right now. I offer no opinion on the ultimate merits of Burgess's claims. As I explained in my March 6 order, if Burgess wishes to bring new claims, he may file a separate lawsuit. He may ask for injunctive relief, including transfer to another facility, in that separate lawsuit. But I may only order immediate injunctive relief in this lawsuit if Burgess shows that he “will suffer irreparable harm in the period before final resolution of [his] claims.” BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 323-24 (7th Cir. 2015). Burgess has not made such a showing, so I will deny his motion for reconsideration.

         B. Summary judgment motions

          The defendants have filed three motions for summary judgment in their favor on all claims.[1] Dkt. 77; Dkt. 94; Dkt. 100. Burgess opposes, and he has also filed a Daubert motion asking me to exclude some of defendants' expert evidence. Dkt. 134.

         The parties' submissions highlight several factual issues that are not adequately developed. Most important, evidence is lacking on the key issues of what type of shoe effectively treats Burgess's serious health condition, who decided that that type of shoe would offer effective treatment, when they made the decision, and whether Burgess has had access to that type of shoe while at WSPF. Rather than issue an opinion based on an incomplete understanding of the facts, I will allow the parties to submit additional evidence, proposed findings of fact, and briefs addressing the following questions.

• Were diabetic shoes ever prescribed to Burgess? If so, when was the prescription written, who wrote it, and what condition were the diabetic shoes prescribed to treat?
• Were other specialty shoes ever prescribed to Burgess? If so, when was the prescription written, who wrote it, and what condition were the shoes prescribed to treat?
• Has a medical professional ever determined that high-top shoes do not treat Burgess's plantar fasciitis? If so, when did they make that determination?
• Do diabetic shoes adequately accommodate Burgess's orthotics and treat Burgess's plantar fasciitis? Why or why not?
• Do the state-issued high-top, lace-up white shoes adequately accommodate Burgess's orthotics and treat Burgess's plantar fasciitis? Why or why not?
• Do high-top shoes unavailable from an approved vendor catalog adequately accommodate Burgess's orthotics and treat Burgess's ...

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.