Chapman v. Tashinski et al

Filing 94

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 2/8/12 that plaintiffs request for additional documents 86 is DENIED. Further ordering that plaintiffs motion for nihil-dicit default judgment 91 is DENIED. Further ordering that defendants motion for summary judgment 76 is GRANTED. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THOMAS EDWARD CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 07-CV-00878

WALTER TYSHYNSKY,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Thomas E. Chapman sues defendant City of Milwaukee police officer
Walter Tyshynsky under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
rights. I have given plaintiff three opportunities to replead his complaint, and before me
now is defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s third amended
complaint. Summary judgment is required if there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). In considering defendant’s motions, I take the evidence and all reasonable
inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party. Carlisle
v. Deere & Co., 576 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 2009).

I may grant a motion only if no

reasonable juror could find for plaintiff. Id.
The uncontested facts in this case are as follows: Defendant is an officer with the
License Investigation Unit assigned to enforce the Public Passenger Vehicle Regulations,
Milwaukee City Ordinance (“MCO”), Chapter 100. Under MCO, Subchapter 4, 100-59.1,
.13, and .14, all taxi drivers are required to display their licenses to operate their vehicles
in a location that is clearly visible to passengers and to have trip records and safety

checklists “readily available for inspection upon request by the police department.” Plaintiff
is a taxi driver licensed to do business in Milwaukee, and defendant stopped plaintiff’s taxi
on July 8, 2008, October 3, 2009, and November 6, 2009. During each of these stops,
defendant checked that plaintiff’s license was current and clearly visible and inspected
plaintiff’s trip records and safety checklists. Defendant then allowed plaintiff to leave
without issuing a citation.
Based on these facts, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because
his actions do not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. City ordinances require
defendant to stop taxi drivers to check their trip records and safety checklists as part of his
official duties, and in this case defendant did exactly that. Plaintiff has not challenged the
validity of the controlling city ordinances, and there is no evidence that defendant intended
to or did harass plaintiff. Defendant briefly stopped plaintiff three times between 2007 and
today, and defendant has never issued a citation to plaintiff. Therefore, I will grant
defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
I will also deny the request plaintiff submitted to this court on September 8, 2011 for
additional documents from defendant. Plaintiff asked the city to provide him with a break
down of citations issued to taxis as opposed to limousines. As discussed at the telephone
status conference on September 7, 2011, defendant is unable to provide this information
because taxis and limousines are both classified as “PP vehicles” in the city’s records. All
the defendant can produce is a list of citations issued to “PP vehicles,” and he has already
produced that list.

2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for additional documents
[DOCKET #86] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for nihil-dicit default judgment
[DOCKET #91] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment
[DOCKET #76] is GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of February 2012.

s/_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3