Williams v. Stauche et al

Filing 148

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/9/2017 DENYING the plaintiff's motions to compel and motion to amend or correct his motion to compel 107 , 112 , 117 , 123 ; DENYING the plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel 109 126 ; GRANTING the plaintiff's motion to submit evidence 110 ; DENYING the plaintiff's motion to reconsider recusal 111 ; and DENYING the plaintiff's motion to stay 116 . (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
TRAVIS DELANEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-1078-pp

DAVE STAUCHIE, MR. ISAAC,
ALVIN BIRDICK, MEGAN KEEFER,
and GUARD RAY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT.
NO. 107), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO
DEPOSE WITNESSES (DKT. NO. 109), GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SUBMIT EVIDENCE (DKT. NO. 110), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 111), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 112), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STAY (DKT. NO. 116), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 117), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL (DKT. NO. 123), AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 126)
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff, Travis Delaney Williams, is proceeding pro se on excessive
force and deliberate indifference to serious medical need claims against the
defendants.
A.

Background
On December 14, 2015, defendant Megan Keefer filed a motion for

summary judgment. Dkt. No. 48. The Kenosha County defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2016. Dkt. No. 57. Before and
after these motions for summary judgment, the parties filed numerous other
motions.
1

On March 14, 2016, in an attempt to get the case back on track, the
court entered an order resolving all of the outstanding motions other than the
defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 78. In that order, the
court directed the plaintiff to sign and return an authorization for the release of
medical records. Id. at 24-25. The court also directed the plaintiff to file his
response to the Kenosha County defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
or before May 16, 2016. Id. at 26. The court received the plaintiff’s response to
the Kenosha County defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 24,
2016. Dkt. Nos. 79-89.
On April 7, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to recuse
itself. Dkt. No. 94. The court denied this motion on April 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 95.
The plaintiff then filed a flurry of motions. On April 25, 2016, the court
received a motion to compel. Dkt. No. 107. On April 27, 2016, the court
received a motion to appoint counsel to depose witnesses, a motion to submit
evidence, and a motion for reconsideration of the court’s recusal decision. Dkt.
Nos. 109-111.
On May 10, 2016, the court received another motion to compel. Dkt. No.
112. Two weeks later, on May 24, 2016, the court received a motion to stay and
a motion to supplement the plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. Nos. 116-17. The
plaintiff filed yet another motion to compel on June 17, 2016. Dkt. No. 123.
Three days later, he filed another motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 126.
While these motions were coming in, the parties completed briefing on
both of the motions for summary judgment. To the extent that they may affect
2

the motions for summary judgment, the court will resolve the outstanding
motions in this order and issue separate orders regarding the defendants’
motions for summary judgment.
B.

Discussion
1.

Motions to Compel (107, 112, 117, 123)

The plaintiff has filed three motions to compel, and a motion to
supplement his motion to compel. These motions generally deal with the same
materials, including production of video footage, grievances, and personnel
records for the defendants—particularly disciplinary records for Isaac and
Burdick. It is unclear whether the plaintiff ever served proper discovery
requests for any of these items. None of the motions includes a certification
that he made a good faith attempt to confer with the defendants before filing
the motions, even though the court’s March 14, 2016 order described the
requirements for filing a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a) and Civil Local Rule 37. Dkt. No. 78 at 14. The plaintiff
suggests that his ongoing communications with the defendants’ attorneys
regarding the case satisfy the requirement, but they do not. The court will deny
the plaintiff’s motions to compel and his motion to supplement his motion to
compel.
The court notes that ultimately the defendants provided many of the
materials at issue in the plaintiff’s motions. The defendants retain their
objections to the defendants’ disciplinary histories and other documents from
the defendants’ personnel files. The court notes that the defendants are not
3

responsible for the plaintiff’s being unable to have a DVD in his cell. If the
plaintiff has claims remaining after the court decides the defendants’ motions
for summary judgment, the court will consider at that time whether the parties
need additional discovery.
2.

Motions to Appoint Counsel (109, 126)

The plaintiff’s first motion asking the court to appoint counsel indicated
that he needed an attorney to depose a number of witnesses for him. Dkt. No.
109. He says he needs the depositions and transcripts for summary judgment.
Id. He also wants an attorney to depose three additional witnesses to refute
what he alleges are lies in the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and
to review the video footage of the use of force. Id. The court will deny this
motion because the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were fully
briefed at the time the plaintiff filed it. The court will reevaluate the plaintiff’s
need for counsel and the need for additional discovery after deciding the
motions for summary judgment.
The plaintiff’s most recent motion is a renewed request for the court to
appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 126. The motion does not focus on the plaintiff’s
need for counsel. Rather, the plaintiff argues that staff at Columbia
Correctional Institution increased their retaliation against the plaintiff after the
court mailed the warden a copy of the March 14, 2016 order. Id. The plaintiff
claims that on April 8, 2016, he was placed in a nasty, dirty cell with human
waste water coming through holes in the wall when inmates shower. Id. Once
again, the court will instruct the plaintiff that these claims are not part of this
4

case. If the plaintiff believes he has retaliation or conditions of confinement
claims against staff members at Columbia Correctional Institution, he must
pursue those separately. The court will deny this motion because it does not
give any reason why the court should appoint counsel.
3.

Submit Evidence (110)

The plaintiff’s motion to submit evidence is actually a sur-reply to the
Kenosha County defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 110. In
this sur-reply, the plaintiff makes some additional arguments, and asks to
submit a copy of an inmate grievance he filed and an affidavit from another
inmate. Dkt. Nos. 110, 110-1. The rules governing motions for summary
judgment do not provide for sur-replies; they provide for a motion, a response,
and a reply. Nonetheless, the court will grant the plaintiff’s motion to submit
the evidence, and will consider the arguments and exhibits in it when
evaluating the Kenosha County defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
4.

Reconsider Recusal (111)

The plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its decision not to recuse itself
from his case. Dkt. No. 111. The plaintiff continues to argue that the court is
prejudiced and biased against him. He believes the court is holding him to
extremely high standards, and expects a mentally and emotionally disturbed
plaintiff with a sixth grade education who is being denied his psychotropic
medication to litigate like famous lawyers. The plaintiff does not present newly
discovered evidence or show that the court made a manifest error of law or fact,
which is what a party must show in order to prevail on a motion to reconsider.
5

See Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir.1987).
The court will not vacate its order declining to recuse itself.
5.

Stay to enforce judgment (116)

The plaintiff asks the court to stay the proceedings in the case until it
rules on his other motions (such as the motions discussed above). The plaintiff
brings this motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, which allows the
court to stay proceedings to enforce a judgment. The court has not issued a
judgment in the plaintiff’s case, so there is no judgment to enforce. Rule 62(b)
does not authorize a court to stay proceedings pending ruling on motions.
Setting aside the fact that the rule the plaintiff cited does not provide for
the relief he requests, the plaintiff asks the court to stay this case until it rules
on his motions to compel and appoint counsel and enters a scheduling order.
Dkt. No. 116. There is no need for a stay; the defendants’ motions for summary
judgment are fully briefed and ready for decision. The court will deny this
motion, but if the plaintiff has claims remaining after the court rules on the
defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the court will issue a new
scheduling order at that time.
C.

Conclusion
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motions to compel and his motion to

amend or correct his motion to compel. Dkt. No. 107, 112, 117, 123.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel. Dkt. No.
109, 126.

6

The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to submit evidence. Dkt. No.
110.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider recusal. Dkt. No.
111.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to stay. Dkt. No. 116.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 9th day of January, 2017.

7