McDaniel v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Judge Brett H Ludwig on 7/16/2021 denying Motions for TRO 40 41 ; denying 44 Motion to include evidence. DOC will file a brief in response to motion for preliminary injunction within 21 days of this order. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(kmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CARL JOSEPH MCDANIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 20-cv-1919-bhl

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Carl McDaniel, who is representing himself, is proceeding with a claim that the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution by failing to give him reasonable accommodations for his
Stress Induced Angina and/or improperly taking away ADA accommodations that were previously
authorized. Dkt. No. 28. This matter comes before the Court on several pending motions: (1)
McDaniel’s motion for a preliminary injunction; (2) McDaniel’s motion, and second motion, for
a temporary restraining order; and (3) McDaniel’s “motion to include evidence to demonstrate
habit: routine practice.” Dkt. Nos. 40-41, 44.
McDaniel’s motion for a preliminary injunction raises numerous unrelated issues, such as
denial of medical care for broken teeth, denial of x-rays for issues with his molar, denial of medical
care for a dislocated shoulder, removal from an ADA-compliant cell, denial of a previously
authorized wheelchair restriction, asthma, issues with his insulin medication, denial of access to
the law library, and retaliation. Dkt. No. 40. A preliminary injunction is appropriate only if it
seeks relief of the same character sought in the underlying complaint and deals with a matter

presented in that underlying complaint. See Peace v. Pollard, Case No. 15-cv-481, 2017 WL
564016 at *1 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 10, 2017) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court will not
address any issue other than McDaniel’s alleged removal from an ADA-compliant cell and the
alleged denial of a previously authorized wheelchair restriction. The Court will order the DOC to
file, within 21 days, a brief response to the motion for a preliminary injunction with an explanation
of the facts and circumstances surrounding McDaniel’s alleged removal from an ADA-compliant
cell and the alleged denial of a previously authorized wheelchair restriction, along with the relevant
legal analysis. See 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(2); see also Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.
2012).
The Court will deny McDaniel’s motion, and second motion, for a temporary restraining
order as redundant. The motions reiterate the same issues already raised in his motion for a
preliminary injunction. Compare Dkt. No. 40 with Dkt. No. 41.
Finally, the Court will also deny McDaniel’s “motion to include evidence to demonstrate
habit: routine practice” as unnecessary. Dkt. No. 44. As the Court has already previously
explained, the docket is the official record of the filings in the case and should only include
pleadings and specific requests for relief (i.e., motions requesting something specific), the
supporting declarations and briefs needed to show a right to the relief requested, and the Court’s
decisions and orders disposing of those requests. “A court’s docket is not a Christmas tree on
which parties are free to hang whatever ornament they think will improve their case.” Lee v. Armor
Correctional Health Services, No. 19-C-614-WCG, dkt. no. 136 at 4 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 4, 2021). The
Court does not need arbitrary pieces of evidence scattered throughout the docket. Any other
“motions to include evidence” that McDaniel files in this case will be summarily denied through
a text-only order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion, and second motion, for a
temporary restraining order (Dkt. Nos. 40-41) and motion to include evidence (Dkt. No. 44) are
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the DOC file a brief response to the plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction within 21 days of this order. The DOC should limit its response to a
brief explanation of the facts and circumstances surrounding McDaniel’s alleged removal from an
ADA-compliant cell and alleged denial of a previously authorized wheelchair restriction, along
with the relevant legal analysis.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 16th day of July, 2021.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge