Simpson et al v. City of Milwaukee et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 11/25/2013 DENYING 36 Letter requesting reinstatement of Milwaukee as defendant in this action. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DANYALL SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
and
COMPCARE HEALTH SERVICES,
Involuntary Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-C-500

v.
JAMES LANGER, and
ZOE JACKSON,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

By an August 27, 2013, Decision and Order (ECF No. 35), this Court granted
the Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(c) (ECF No. 19) dismissing Simpson’s claim pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of
Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), against the Defendant City of Milwaukee
(“Milwaukee”) (Second Claim for Relief) and dismissed it from this action.
The Plaintiff, Danyall Simpson (“Simpson”) filed a letter (ECF No. 36)
requesting that Milwaukee be reinstated in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
relying upon the allegation of paragraph 45 of the Complaint that, pursuant to Wis.

1

Stat. § 895.46(1)(a), Milwaukee is liable for the actions of the individual defendants,
Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”) officers James Langer (“Langer”) and Zoe
Jackson (“Jackson”), during their encounter with Simpson on the night of May 21,
2006. (ECF No. 1).
Milwaukee opposes the request because that the Defendants “have admitted
that at all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, both Officers Langer
and Jackson were acting within the scope of their employment” and therefore
indemnification is “not a contested issue in this case.” (ECF No. 37). Additionally it
states “[t]here will be no question presented to any jury, relative to any
indemnification claim.” (Id.)
Subsequently, Simpson requested that Milwaukee stipulate it is liable for any
judgment against Langer and Jackson. Milwaukee has declined to do so at this time.
(ECF No. 38.)
Milwaukee is bound by its representation that the indemnification of Langer
and Jackson is not an issue in this case and that both officers acted within the scope of
their employment. Furthermore, there are no pending claims against Milwaukee.
Moreover, the indemnification claims are not Simpson’s; the claims are those of
Langer and Jackson in the event they are found liable for the constitutional tort
alleged by Simpson. Having considered Milwaukee’s position and the allegations of
the Complaint; the applicable law, see Javier v. City of Milwaukee, 670 F.3d 823,
828-30 (7th Cir. 2012), and Graham v. Sauk Prairie Police Comm’n, 915 F.2d 1085,
2

1091-92 (7th Cir. 1990), the Court denies Simpson’s request to reinstate Milwaukee
as a defendant in this action based on his claim for indemnification under Wis. Stat. §
895.46(1)(a).
Reinstatement of Milwaukee as a defendant in this action is unnecessary. It
would be a waste of time since Milwaukee’s responsibility to indemnify Langer and
Jackson in this action is uncontested, could confuse the jury on the liability issue, and
may needlessly expend judicial resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Simpson’s request for REINSTATEMENT of Milwaukee as a defendant in
this action (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

3