Hampton v. Sheboygan County Detention Center et al
Filing
106
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph. IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 55 ) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(asc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JERMAINE A. HAMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 19-cv-609
MARK RICHTER, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On April 9, 2020, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
55.) On July 27, 2020, after extensive discovery, a hearing to resolve discovery disputes,
numerous extensions of time, voluminous motion practice by Hampton, and a pending
motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Hampton filed a motion to dismiss
the case without prejudice. (ECF No. 89.) The court granted the motion to dismiss but did so
with prejudice given the substantial amount of time and resources the defendants had spent
participating in hearings, conducting and responding to discovery, responding to Hampton’s
motions to compel, and filing their own dispositive motion. (ECF Nos. 90-91.) On June 30,
2021, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal without prejudice and
noted that “the court did not have to dismiss without prejudice” but that it should have given
Hampton an opportunity to withdraw his motion to dismiss because “he had time left to
respond to the summary-judgment motion.” (ECF No. 101 at 4.) The Seventh Circuit noted,
“[Hampton’s] desire to continue litigating was the express premise of his motion” and he still
had two weeks left to respond. (Id.)
Case 1:19-cv-00609-NJ Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 4 Document 106
Accordingly, on September 29, 2021, the court ordered Hampton to file his materials
in response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on or before October 25, 2021.
(ECF No. 103.) The court also warned Hampton that under Civil L. R. 7(d) failure to respond
to the motion or to ask for additional time to respond would be sufficient cause for the court
to grant the motion as a sanction for noncompliance. (Id.) On October 25, 2021, Hampton
asked for another extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 104.) On October 27, 2021, the court granted his motion and ordered
that Hampton must file his materials in response to the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on or before January 12, 2022. The court noted that given the length of time
Hampton requested in his motion for extension of time, no further extensions would be
granted absent extraordinary circumstances. The January 12, 2022, deadline has passed, and
Hampton did not file his materials in response to the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.
Hampton was allowed to proceed on a failure to protect claim against defendants
Michael Oppeneer, Mark Richter, and Dustin VerVelde and a deliberate indifference to his
medical needs claim against Richter and Oppeneer. (ECF No. 12.) The defendants’ moved
for summary judgment, (ECF No. 55), and Hampton never filed a response to their motion
for summary judgment and statement of facts. Because Hampton failed to respond to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment and statement of facts, the court finds that the
defendants’ statement of facts, (ECF Nos. 57–62), are undisputed and accepted as true. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The court has reviewed the defendants’ motion, brief in support, and
undisputed statement of facts, and concludes that they are entitled to summary judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3).
2
Case 1:19-cv-00609-NJ Filed 02/02/22 Page 2 of 4 Document 106
Based on the undisputed facts, Hampton never requested to be housed separately from
Joiner and Hampton never informed defendants Oppeneer, Richter, or VerVelde of a threat
to his safety by Joiner until after he was attacked. (ECF No. 57 at ¶¶2–10.) Further, video
surveillance of the incident shows that contrary to Hampton’s allegations, he was not attacked
in his sleep. (Id. at ¶13.) Instead, the video surveillance shows Hampton and Joiner talking
at Hampton’s cell door before Joiner entered the cell. (Id.) Joiner placed a bedsheet over the
window obstructing the view, and when the bedsheet fell shortly thereafter, both inmates
could be seen engaged in a physical fight. (Id.) Therefore, defendants Oppeneer, Richter, and
VerVelde did not know Hampton faced a substantial risk of serious harm and were not
deliberately indifferent to his safety.
Additionally, when Hampton returned to the detention center from the hospital
Oppeneer gave him the gauze the hospital provided to use as needed. (Id. at ¶16.) Hampton
alleges that he talked to Oppeneer about wanting to see the nurse, but Hampton does not
recall Oppeneer’s response. (Id. at ¶17.) Oppeneer does not recall having a conversation with
Hampton about contacting the nurse, but as a matter of practice he would have done so if
asked. (Id. at ¶18) Further, Oppeneer understood that the medical staff were aware of
Hampton’s condition and were treating Hampton as directed by the hospital doctor. (ECF
No. ¶¶10, 12.) Moreover, once he returned from the hospital, Hampton did not speak or have
any interactions that night with Richter. (ECF No. 57 at ¶15.) Therefore, because Richter had
no interaction with Hampton and Oppeneer provided gauze and would have contacted a
nurse if Hampton actually requested one, they were not deliberately indifferent to Hampton’s
medical needs.
3
Case 1:19-cv-00609-NJ Filed 02/02/22 Page 3 of 4 Document 106
As a result, the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law and their motion
must be granted. Additionally, pursuant to Civil L. R. 7(d), the court finds that Hampton’s
failure to respond to the defendants’ motion is sufficient cause for the court to grant the
motion as a sanction for noncompliance.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. No. 55) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter
judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 2nd day of February, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge
This order and the judgment to follow are final. Plaintiff may appeal this Court’s decision to the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within 30 days of
the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4. This Court may extend this deadline if a party
timely requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able to meet
the 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If Plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the
$505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. If Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal, he must file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this
Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff may be assessed another “strike” by the Court of
Appeals if his appeal is found to be non-meritorious. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). If Plaintiff
accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to file an action in federal court (except as a petition
for habeas corpus relief) without prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in
imminent danger of serous physical injury. Id.
Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or amend its judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28
days of the entry of judgment. Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be
filed within a reasonable time, generally no more than one year after the entry of judgment. The
Court cannot extend these deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine, what, if any, further action
is appropriate in a case.
4
Case 1:19-cv-00609-NJ Filed 02/02/22 Page 4 of 4 Document 106
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?