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.

Brown v. Hannah

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

January 6, 2020

ENNIS LEE BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL HANNAH, and CO JOHN DOE, sued as John Doe CO's 1-3, Defendants.

         ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PARTY (DKT. NO. 118) AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT MICHAEL HANNAH, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ADD PARTY (DKT. NO. 118) AND ADDING MARLON HANNAH AS A DEFENDANT; DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL/MOTION TO CLARIFY (DKT. NO. 121); DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DKT. NO. 122); DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD PARTIES (DKT. NO. 124); GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER (DKT. NO. 125); DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 127) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (DKT. NO. 132)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On June 11, 2019, the court struck the plaintiff's second amended complaint and allowed the plaintiff to proceed on Claim 1 from his June 8, 2016 amended complaint (dkt. no. 10). Dkt. No. 106 at 1, 4. Specifically, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed on Claim 1-#5 at page 5, his Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and Eighth Amendment failure to provide medical care claims against CO Hannah and the three John Doe COs, based on the February 6, 2013 incident. Dkt. No. 106 at 4. Defendant Michael Hannah answered the amended complaint on August 12, 2019, dkt. no. 112, and three days later the court issued a scheduling order, dkt. no. 113. That order required the parties to complete discovery by December 16, 2019; to move to amend the pleadings by November 15, 2019; and to file dispositive motions by January 17, 2020. Id. The defendant since has filed a motion to dismiss party and add party, dkt. no. 118; and a motion to file amended answer, dkt. no. 125. The plaintiff has filed a motion for recusal and motion to clarify, dkt. no. 121; a motion to compel discovery, dkt. no. 122; a motion to add parties, dkt. no. 124; and a motion for leave to file amended complaint, dkt. no. 127. The plaintiff has also filed a document submitting the names of two of the three John Doe defendants. Dkt. No. 123. Finally, the defendant has asked the court to stay proceedings until it rules on the pending motions. Dkt. No. 132.

         A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and to Name New Defendant (Dkt. No. 118); Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (Dkt. No. 125)

         The defendant asks to dismiss defendant Michael Hannah and to add Marlon Hannah as a defendant. Dkt. No. 118. The defendant indicates that in seeking to determine the identity of the “CO Hannah” named in the amended complaint, counsel thought that the defendant was Michael Hannah, based on an initial review of the allegations and the initial interview with Michael Hannah. Dkt. No. 119 at 1. The defendant says, however, that a further review of Milwaukee County Jail records showed that Michael Hannah had no connection with the allegations in the amended complaint, and that the plaintiff likely intended to name Marlon Hannah as a defendant. Id. The defendant explains that this understanding of the plaintiff's intent is solidified by the plaintiff's recent Sixth Request for Discovery, which clarified that he is suing the CO Hannah who no longer works at the Milwaukee County Jail. Id. at 1-2. According to the defendant, Marlon Hannah no longer works at the jail, he has consented to be represented by the Office of Corporation Counsel and, if named, defense counsel will accept service on his behalf. Id. at 2. The defendant says that because Michael Hannah has no connection to the allegations in the plaintiff's amended complaint, he should be dismissed as a defendant and Marlon Hannah should be named as a defendant consistent with the plaintiff's allegations and his discovery inquiry. Id.

         Based on the defendant's motion and supporting brief, it appears that two CO Hannahs worked at the Milwaukee County Jail during the relevant events the plaintiff described in the amended complaint. While CO Michael Hannah was served with the amended complaint, the defendant now has additional information clarifying that CO Marlon Hannah is the “CO Hannah” named in the amended complaint. The plaintiff has indicated that while the court referred to the defendant as “Melvin Hannah” (the court can't find any record of its referring to the defendant as “Melvin”), “the actual Defendants name is ‘MARLAN HANNAH”, the brother of Melvin Hannah.” Dkt. No. 123. The court construes this as the plaintiff's agreement that the correct plaintiff is Marlon Hannah. The court will grant the defendant's motion to dismiss Michael Hannah, and to add Marlon Hannah.

         On November 5, 2019, the defendant filed a motion for leave to amend the answer along with a proposed amended answer that references CO Marlon Hannah as a party in place of CO Michael Hannah. Dkt. No. 125. The court will grant this motion and direct the clerk's office to docket the proposed amended answer (Dkt. No. 125-1).

         B. Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal and Motion to Clarify (Dkt. No. 121)

         On August 23, 2019, the court received from the plaintiff a document entitled “Motion for Clarity.” Dkt. No. 114. In that motion, the plaintiff asserted that in his brief in support of his motion asking the court to consider its order requiring him to select from among his many mis-joined claims (dkt. no. 107), he'd presented arguments supporting his view that his claims were properly joined; he argued that the court had not addressed those arguments. Id. at 1-3. He also questioned whether the court should continue to preside over his case, given that he'd filed grievances against Judge Pepper and a writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit. Id. at 4-6. On October 9, 2019, the court responded to that motion in a five-page order, explaining why the law required the plaintiff to select among his claims, and responding (as it has several times) to his allegations that Judge Pepper is biased against him. Dkt. No. 120.

         The next day-October 21, 2019-the court received this current motion for clarification and motion for recusal. Dkt. No. 121. It is almost identical to the motion the plaintiff filed in August, at Dkt. No. 114. The court addressed the plaintiff's questions, as well as his request for recusal, in its order filed October 9, 2019. Dkt. No. 120. (The court's October 9, 2019 order probably didn't reach the plaintiff before he submitted his October 10, 2019 motion for recusal and clarity.) Because the court already has addressed the issues raised in the plaintiff's motion for clarity and motion for recusal, the court will deny the motions as moot.

         C. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 122)

         In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendants to provide him with discovery, which he summed up as “any and all documents that allowed the Milwaukee County Sheriff Dept. to Detain the Plaintiff from July, 28, 2012 through October 28, 2013 fore the case of 2012-cf-03796 or any case, court order, parole violation, warrant, of any Jurisdiction or county or State in the Continental United States.” Dkt. No. 77 at 2. This discovery related to one of the many claims in the amended complaint-his fourth claim, that certain defendants violated the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments by placing him in segregation without a hearing. See Dkt. No. 99 at 2. The court denied the motion to compel on February 25, 2019, noting that it had stayed the proceedings on the merits until it could resolve the defendants' motion to dismiss on exhaustion grounds. Dkt. No. 99 at 10.

         On October 23, 2019, the court received from the plaintiff this current motion to compel; it is identical to the motion he filed in April, except that the plaintiff didn't sign or date it. Dkt. No. 122 at 1-2. The plaintiff did not include a certification showing that he conferred with defense counsel before filing his motion to compel, as required by Civil Local Rule 37 (E.D. Wis.) (motion to compel must “be accompanied by a written certification by the movant that, after the movant in good faith has conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action, the parties are unable to reach an accord”). Without such a certification, the plaintiff's motion is premature.

         Even if the plaintiff had complied with the court's local rule, the court would deny his motion, because it asks for discovery that is not relevant to the claim upon which he's proceeding. Since the last time the plaintiff filed this motion, the court required him to choose a single claim upon which to proceed. The plaintiff did not make that choice, so the court allowed him to proceed on claim #5 at page 5 of the June 8, 2016 amended complaint, “the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and Eight Amendment failure to provide medical care claims against CO Hannah and three John Doe ...


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.