United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
BARBARA B. CRABB DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff William Teas is proceeding in this case on claims
that several defendants at the Columbia Correctional
Institution violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment,
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation
Act. The case was stayed for more than a year while the court
attempted to find counsel for plaintiff, but the court was
unable to find a lawyer willing and able to take the case. In
September 2018, plaintiff notified the court that he would
proceed with the case without counsel, rather than dismiss it
without prejudice. Dkt. #66. In October 2018, a new schedule
was set for the case. Defendants have filed a motion for
summary judgment, dkt. #75, and the court recently granted
plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline of his response
brief to June 14, 2019.
plaintiff has filed a motion for assistance in recruiting
counsel and for an immediate injunction, dkt. #72, a motion
to compel discovery and for sanctions, dkt. #88, and a motion
to stay summary judgment pending a decision on the motion to
compel, dkt. #94. For the reasons below, I am denying
plaintiff's motions for assistance in recruiting counsel,
for an injunction, for sanctions and to stay the case.
However, I will grant his motion to compel.
Motion for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel and for
asks that the court recruit counsel for him “for all of
the previous reasons” and because the inmate who has
been assisting him, Jeffrey Davis, cannot afford to help him
with discovery. However, as I explained to plaintiff
previously, the court attempted to recruit counsel for
plaintiff for more than a year and was unable to find anyone
willing to accept the case. Therefore, although I am
sympathetic to plaintiff's request and his need for
assistance, his renewed request for court assistance in
recruiting counsel will be denied.
appears from the record that inmate Davis has been assisting
plaintiff in conducting discovery despite Davis's
financial limitations. If Davis can no longer assist
plaintiff, plaintiff should review the pretrial conference
order, dkt. #70, which explains how to conduct discovery and
how to respond to the summary judgment motion filed by
defendants. Plaintiff should review that order and, if he is
confused about how to obtain evidence, he should write a
letter to defendants' counsel explaining which documents
or other evidence he wants to obtain. If he is still confused
after conferring with defendants' counsel, he should
write to the court to ask for help.
deciding defendants' motion for summary judgment, the
court will apply the appropriate law to the facts, even if
plaintiff cannot provide the law on his own or does not
understand how the law applies to his facts.
also asks for information on how to request immediate
injunctive relief. He says that there are currently no
doctors at Columbia Correctional Institution and that he is
not receiving any care for his back pain. To prevail on a
motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show: (1)
a likelihood of success on the merits of his case; (2) a lack
of an adequate remedy at law; and (3) an irreparable harm
that will result if the injunction is not granted.
Lambert v. Buss, 498 F.3d 446, 451 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff is correct that there are procedures that he must
follow to request immediate injunctive relief. A copy of the
court's procedure for obtaining preliminary injunctive
relief will be provided to plaintiff with this order. Under
the court's procedures, plaintiff must file and serve
proposed findings of fact that support his claims, along with
any evidence that supports those proposed findings. If
plaintiff files a motion complying with these procedures, I
will consider his request for injunctive relief.
Motion to Compel and for Sanctions and Motion to
contends that defendant Dalia Suliene provided a false and
incomplete response to an interrogatory that asked her to
[D]escribe any and all expert testimony you have provided in
the last ten (10) years, state whether or not you were
compensated for it, and in what case the testimony was used
or being provided for, regarding your medical expertise.
responded to this interrogatory by stating,
“none.” Plaintiff contends that Suliene's
response is false because she was disclosed as an expert and
provided expert testimony in several prisoner cases,
including Towns v. Dittman, et al., 17-cv-912-bbc;
Wagner v. Suliene, 12-cv-376-bbc; and McGhee v.
Suliene, 13-cv-67-bbc. Defendants oppose the motion on
the grounds that (1) plaintiff did not certify that he
attempted to confer with defendants and resolve the discovery
issue before filing his motion, and (2) Suliene has never
been a retained expert in any case.
with plaintiff that Suliene's response is inaccurate.
Plaintiff's interrogatory asks about all the cases in
which Suliene provided expert testimony. The question is not
limited to cases for which Suliene was retained as an expert.
“Expert” testimony is any testimony that is based
on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge
within the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. A review of
Suliene's declarations from Towns and
Wagner confirms that Suliene provided opinions that
relied on her scientific and specialized knowledge in those
cases. Additionally, although plaintiff did not certify that
he conferred with defendants before filing his motion, he has
since explained that he attempted multiple times to confer