Williams v. Stauche et al

Filing 151

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 2/21/2017 DENYING 48 Defendant Megan Keefer's original Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 131 Plaintiff's Fourth Motion to Appoint Counsel and DENYING 132 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (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 WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
FOURTH MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 131) AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 132) AND DENYING MEGAN
KEEFER’S ORIGINAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 48)
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff, Travis Delaney Williams, is proceeding pro se on excessive
force and deliberate indifference to serious medical need claims against the
defendants. The plaintiff has filed a fourth motion to appoint counsel, dkt. no.
131, and a motion to compel, dkt. no. 132. The court will also address
defendant Megan Keefer’s two pending motions for summary judgment. Dkt.
Nos. 48, 133.
A.

Motion to Appoint Counsel
On October 3, 2016, the plaintiff filed his fourth motion to appoint

counsel. Dkt. No. 131. In this motion, the plaintiff notes that he filed a lawsuit
in July 2016 in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin regarding his inability to access the law library and law clerks at
1

Columbia Correctional Institution. Id. at 1. He also filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction in that case. Id. The plaintiff states that he received help
to conduct discovery, that he has a sixth grade education, and that he is
mentally unstable. Id. at 2. For these reasons, the plaintiff asks this court to
appoint counsel to assist him. Id.
On January 9, 2017, the court issued an order ruling on several of the
plaintiff’s prior motions, including two previous motions to appoint counsel.
See Dkt. No. 148 at 4-5 (denying motion to appoint counsel at Dkt. No. 109
and motion to appoint counsel at Dkt. No. 126). The court will deny this
motion, as well. If, after the court has decided the pending motions for
summary judgment, there are issues remaining which the plaintiff believes to
be so complicated that he cannot litigate them himself, he may file another
motion.
B.

Motion to Compel
On October 13, 2016, the court received from the plaintiff a motion to

compel, asking the court to order the defendants to produce “all detainee
names & their assigned cell in the Kenosha County pretrial facility X-Block
who was assigned in X-Block on August 18th & 19th 2014 from 12: noon pm
on August 18th 2014 through 8 pm August 19th 2014.” Dkt. No. 132 at 1. He
claims that he has asked the defendants twice to produce these names, that
the names have not been produced, and then writes, “lets CONFER! CONFER!”
Id.

2

In response, the defendants acknowledged that they received the request
for production of documents, dated September 30, 2016. Dkt. No. 134 at 2.
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) gives parties thirty days to respond to requests for
production of documents, the defendants explain that the plaintiff filed his
motion to compel on October 13, 2016—only fourteen days after the date on
his document request. Id. The defendants indicate that they responded to the
plaintiff’s request on October 17, 2016—four days after he filed it—and
provided him all the documents he requested. Id. The motion to compel,
therefore, is moot.
The court also notes that by dated his document request September 30,
2016, and then filing a motion to compel fourteen days later, the plaintiff did
not comply with the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) that he give the
defendants thirty days to respond. And the plaintiff’s motion to compel did not
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and Civil Local Rule 37,
because the motion did not contain any certification that the plaintiff met and
conferred with the defendants in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute
before he filed his motion. The court has informed the plaintiff of this
requirement in other cases in which he has filed motions to compel. The court
will deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel.
C.

Nurse Keefer’s Motions for Summary Judgment
On December 14, 2015, defendant Meghan Keefer filed her original

motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 48. At the time, she did not have
access to the plaintiff’s medical records. On October 18, 2016, Keefer filed a
3

renewed motion for summary judgment, indicating that she had obtained the
records and that they were consistent with the information already filed. Dkt.
No. 133. She asks the court to decide her motion based on the pleadings
already filed, and once against provides the plaintiff with the notice required by
Civil Local Rule 56(a)(1). Dkt. No. 133. The plaintiff supplemented his response
after receiving Keefer’s renewed motion for summary judgment, dkt. nos. 139144, and Keefer filed a reply brief on November 7, 2016, dkt. no. 147. The court
will deny Keefer’s original motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 48, and
consider decide the renewed motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 133),
supported by the brief and supporting documents she filed in support of her
original motion.
D.

Conclusion
The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s fourth motion

to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 131. The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to
compel. Dkt. No. 132.
The court DENIES defendant Megan Keefer’s motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 48.
The court will issue a separate order regarding Keefer’s renewed motion

4

for summary judgment, dkt. no. 133, and the motion for summary judgment
filed by the Kenosha County defendants, dkt. no. 57.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 21st day of February, 2017.

5