United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
D. PETERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
Pierre Cardell Brown, appearing pro se, is an inmate in the
Minnesota state prison system. He alleges that when he was
housed at Columbia Correctional Institution, prison officials
there violated his rights by keeping him in a cell with feces
on the window and failing to clean the cell.
has filed a series of motions that I will address below. The
parties have also both filed motions for summary judgment.
Those motions are not ripe for decision because I am allowing
Brown to amend his complaint to name more defendants who were
personally involved in housing him in the dirty cell. I will
reset the schedule to give the parties a chance to supplement
their summary judgment motions in light of the new
Motions to amend complaint
originally alleged that in March 2017, he was moved into a
new cell at CCI that had feces smeared on the window.
See Dkt. 1. He told correctional officers and
defendant Unit Manager Lindsay Walker about it, but none of
them addressed the problem. Id. I allowed Brown to
proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against Walker, but
Walker was the only defendant named in the original complaint
whom Walker alleged was actually involved in the events. Dkt.
8, at 3. I noted that Brown alleged that various correctional
officers did nothing to help him, but he did not name them as
has filed two motions to amend his complaint, Dkt. 14 and
Dkt. 23, asking for the same thing in both: he seeks to add
as defendants Sergeant III Chatman, Correctional Officer II
Ashton, and Correctional Officer Blair. In the text of his
original complaint, Brown alleged that he told all three of
these officials about the problem but none of them addressed
it. I will grant Brown's first motion to amend his
complaint and allow him to proceed on
conditions-of-confinement claims against these officials. I
will deny his second motion as redundant to the first.
Motion for injunctive relief
has filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief about
the conditions of his confinement at Dodge Correctional
Institution: he says that there was also feces in a cell he
was placed in at that facility, giving him
“flashbacks” to his mistreatment at CCI. Dkt. 13.
He also states that his legal materials were confiscated.
deny the motion. Brown does not comply with this court's
procedures to be followed on motions for injunctive relief.
Under these procedures, a plaintiff must file with the court
and serve on defendants proposed findings of fact supporting
his claim, along with any evidence he has to support those
findings and his request for relief. In addition, although
his claim is about a similar condition of his confinement,
his motion is about a new facility with different staff
members, so his problems with the conditions at DCI do not
belong in this lawsuit. Brown's complaint about his legal
materials also appear to be resolved because he has followed
with numerous filings, including a motion for summary
judgment with supporting evidence.
Motion for recruitment of counsel
has renewed his motion for the court's assistance in
recruiting him counsel. Dkt. 21. I denied his original motion
at the same time I screened his complaint, stating that he
failed to document that he sought help from at least three
lawyers, and that it was too early to tell whether the case
would be too complex for him to handle himself. Dkt. 8, at
now gives the names of two lawyers who he says he contacted
but turned him down. The court usually concludes that it is
reasonable to require a plaintiff show that he has contacted
three lawyers about representation. But even if I concluded
that his efforts were enough, I will deny his current motion
because I am not convinced that the case is too complex for
him to handle. As I stated above, Brown has been able to file
numerous documents, including summary judgment materials that
show that he has a good understanding of how to support his
claims. He states that while he was housed at Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility, he had very little access to the law
library. But Brown is no longer housed at WSPF so the
conditions there are not relevant to his motion. As the
lawsuit moves forward, if Brown continues to believe that he
is unable to litigate the lawsuit himself, then he may renew
his motion, but he will have to explain what specific
litigation tasks he cannot perform himself.
Motion to compel
has filed a motion to compel Walker to respond to his request
for production of documents. Dkt. 27. But Brown did not
properly serve counsel with that discovery request; instead,
he e-filed the requests directly to the court's docket.
Dkt. 24. The clerk of court informed Brown that he had
incorrectly filed those requests. Dkt. 25. Walker says that