United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.
Hakim Naseer, appearing pro se, alleges that prison officials
have failed to adequately treat his severe head pain in
several ways. Naseer says that they will not assess him, they
intercept his correspondence to the health services manager
about this mistreatment, they keep him from being seen by a
doctor, and they returned his grievance instead of processing
it. He brings claims under Eighth Amendment, equal protection
“class of one, ” and First Amendment theories.
The parties have filed a series of motions-almost all of them
filed by Naseer-that I will address in this order.
has filed a motion asking for preliminary injunctive relief
to stop prison officials from removing documents from his
medical file and giving him medications that were not
prescribed to him, to be provided with proper medical care,
and to be sent to another prison. Dkt. 52.
denied a previous preliminary injunction motion filed by
Naseer about staff removing evidence from his files because
he did not describe in any detail what he believed was taken.
See Dkt. 51. He has a similar problem here. He
states that defendant Jolinda Waterman removed items from his
medical file that caused him to be unable to respond to a
summary judgment motion in a previous case in this court, No.
13-cv-821-jdp. But that appears to be an act of past
misconduct that does not affect the current case. He adds
that staff removed documents from his medical file in June
2018, but he does not explain what that those documents were,
what they would have said, or how they affect this lawsuit.
Because Naseer does not present specific facts explaining how
defendants are harming him, I cannot consider his request for
injunctive relief about his medical file. As discussed
further below, later motions by Naseer flesh out his theory
that medical records are being destroyed, but he doesn't
show that there has been any intentional destruction of
also deny Naseer's requests about being given incorrect
medication and receiving inadequate care. This case is about
severe head pain Naseer says that he suffers. But his
proposed findings of fact and declaration focus on treatment
for skin problems that Naseer believes are caused by lupus.
He also says that he is not receiving medication refills, but
the documents he attaches show the medications to be lotion,
eye drops, and medicated shampoo. See Dkt. 54-5 and
54-6. I cannot consider injunctive relief unrelated to the
claims in this lawsuit, and Naseer does not explain what
these problems have to do with his severe head pain. So I
will deny his motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
has filed a motion seeking sanctions against counsel for
defendants. Dkt. 66. He contends that when counsel repeated
his proposed findings of fact in their responses,
see Dkt. 62, they did not reproduce the proposed
findings verbatim as required by the court. Naseer believes
that they did so for the purpose of misleading the court. For
instance, counsel left out the word “to” in the
phrase “transferred shortly after to GBCI prison,
” id. at 2, and did not put the words
“in part” in all capital letters like Naseer did,
id. at 3. I want parties to faithfully reproduce the
other side's proposed findings of fact in their own
materials, but these discrepancies are so minor that they
cannot reasonably seen as attempts to mislead. And I note
that this is not an easy task for defendants given
Naseer's difficult-to-read handwriting. This simply is
not matter for which sanctions are appropriate, so I will
deny Naseer's motion.
has filed a second motion for sanctions, in which he says
that defendant Waterman perjured herself in responding to his
motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 82. Inconsistences in
testimony are often a result of fallible human memory or
other mistakes. And parties are free to give their opinion or
to disagree with each other over the meaning of facts without
that being considered lying under oath. None of
Waterman's statements that Naseer raises in his motion
come anywhere close to perjury.
instance, Naseer says that Waterman falsely testified that
neither she nor her staff removed items from his medical
file. Naseer states that the medical file that Waterman
compiled for him does not include a letter written by
defendant Lori Alsum to Naseer (and copied to Waterman)
responding to his complaint that years' worth of medical
records were missing from his file. Dkt. 83-1, at 3. I take
Naseer to be saying that Waterman intentionally did not
include that letter in the medical file she sent to him, that
the letter itself states that some of his records were
destroyed, and that Waterman lied when she said that the
destruction of records did not occur. I'm not certain
that the letter itself is really a “medical
record” that Waterman was supposed to include in the
file she sent to Naseer, because it is not directly about
Naseer's treatment. But even if the letter should have
been included, all Naseer has shown is an oversight by
Waterman, not that she intentionally removed the record from
his medical file. The letter itself is also not proof that
years' worth of his medical records were actually
destroyed. It shows that Naseer believes that records were
destroyed. Alsum's response says only that she discussed
the issue with health staff and that Naseer could also
discuss it with health staff or file an inmate grievance.
Alsum did not say that records were in fact destroyed. Naseer
has given me no reason to think that Waterman lied about
records being destroyed.
also says that Waterman was lying when she said that
Naseer's medical records would show that “Naseer is
requesting care and having his medical needs addressed on a
regular basis by WSPF staff and outside providers.”
Dkt. 63, at 3. Naseer says that he's not receiving proper
care for lupus, but as stated above, this case is not about
his lupus treatment. And in any event, Waterman's
statement about the quality of care that Naseer received may
be correct or incorrect, but Naseer does not show that
Waterman intentionally presented false testimony, rather than
her truthful opinion about his care. I will deny his second
motion for sanctions.
has filed a motion “for immediate relief”
concerning incomplete discovery responses by defendants. Dkt.
71. Defendants responded to his first request for production
of documents by stating that 85 pages of documents were
attached to the response, but Naseer did not receive those
documents. Defendants respond by stating that they mistakenly
failed to attach copies of the documents to the packet they
sent to Naseer, and that they sent new copies to him. Dkt.
72. This would ordinarily resolve the matter. But in his
reply, Naseer states that he believes that this was not
merely an oversight and that counsel for defendants is
intentionally harassing and abusing him. Dkt. 76. He suggests
that counsel attempted to conceal her wrongdoing by
withdrawing from her representation after sending him the
incomplete discovery responses. Id.
is incorrect that counsel withdrew from the case: the notice
regarding counsel he refers to states that additional counsel
has joined the defense, not that the original attorney has
been replaced with a new one. See Dkt. 68. But even
if original counsel had withdrawn, that wouldn't have
hidden any wrongdoing, had it occurred. I agree with Naseer
that the discovery responses were incomplete, but counsel has
fixed the error. There is no relief to be given Naseer, and