Williams v. Blasius et al
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 2/4/16 that plaintiffs motion to amend complaint and to add party 12 is DENIED AS MOOT. Further ordering that plaintiffs motion to create a class of correctional officer defendants 13 is DENIED. Further ord ering that plaintiffs motion to add parties 17 is GRANTED. The following parties are added as defendants: Nurse Page Meuller, Vorb Dr. Murphy, Nurse Mahilither, Nurse Weilly, and K. Einwalther. Further ordering that plaintiffs motion for prelimina ry injunction 19 is DENIED. Further ordering that plaintiffs motion for extension of time 24 is DENIED AS MOOT. Further ordering that copies of plaintiffs second amended complaint and this order are being electronically sent today to the Wiscon sin Department of Justice for service on the following state defendants: Nurse Page Meuller, Vorb Dr. Murphy, Nurse Mahilither, Nurse Weilly, and K. Einwalther and that all defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the proposed second amended complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANTHONY H. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-CV-614
LORA BLASIUS and
DR. ENRIQUE LUY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff, Anthony Williams, is proceeding pro se on Eighth Amendment claims
that defendants delayed his treatment for a knee injury and failed to comply with other
doctors’ orders regarding his treatment. He is also proceeding on an Eighth Amendment
claim that the State has a policy or custom of not following other doctor’s orders
regarding prisoners. Before me now are various motions filed by plaintiff.
On July 22, 2016, the court received plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, a
proposed amended complaint, a motion to add parties, and a motion to create a class of
correctional officer defendants for plaintiff’s policy claim. A couple of weeks later, the
court received a motion to add parties and a proposed second amended complaint. I will
deny as moot plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint and his first motion to add
parties because plaintiff’s second motion to add parties superseded those motions.
I also will deny plaintiff’s motion to create a class of correctional officer
defendants. No class is necessary because plaintiff’s claims against the named
defendants in their official capacities are against the State itself. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). If I conclude that the State had such a policy
and that it violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, any injunctive relief ending the policy
would apply throughout the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. See Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985). There is no need to name all correctional
officers who have taken part in enforcing the policy or may in the future.
I will grant plaintiff’s second motion to add parties (ECF No. 17) and screen
plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint (ECF No. 16) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff has stated Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Luy,
Blasius, Meuller, Murphy, Mahillither, Weilly, and Einwalther regarding his delayed
treatment for a knee injury and failure to comply with other doctors’ orders regarding his
treatment. Each of these defendants was personally involved in plaintiff’s treatment in
some way.
I also will allow plaintiff to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim that the State
has a policy or custom of not following orders regarding prisoners from doctors outside
the prison. Plaintiff may proceed on this claim against each of the defendants in their
official capacities.
I will order service of plaintiff’s second amended complaint and enter a
scheduling order after defendants file an answer to this second amended complaint.
I now turn to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He asserts that he had
not been scheduled for a timely follow up appointment with an outside doctor regarding
muscle weakness in his left quadriceps. Plaintiff asks the court to order the prison to
schedule the follow up appointment. He also suggests that defendants falsified and redated documents regarding plaintiff’s treatment in 2014.
2
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded
upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972
(1997) (per curiam)). The injunctive relief plaintiff seeks, a follow up appointment in
2016, does not relate to his underlying claims regarding the treatment he received in
2014. As a result, I cannot grant plaintiff the injunctive relief he seeks. See Hashim v.
Hamblin, No. 14-cv-1265, 2016 WL 297465, at *4 (E.D. Wis. January 22, 2016)
(“Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief are not connected to the claims he is proceeding
on in this case. He may not seek relief in connection with these claims in this lawsuit.”
(citations omitted)).
Finally, I will address plaintiff’s letter brief docketed as a motion for extension of
time. In the letter, plaintiff asks me to accept his response to defendants’ answer. I will
deny this motion as moot because the response has already been filed and therefore
was already “accepted.” However, I note that such a response is unnecessary. When
defendants filed their answer to his second amended complaint, plaintiff should not file a
response.
For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend
complaint (Docket #12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to add party (Docket #12) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to create a class of correctional
officer defendants (Docket #13) is DENIED.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to add parties (Docket #17) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction
(Docket #19) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Docket
#24) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following defendants are added as
defendants: Nurse Page Meuller, Vorb Dr. Murphy, Nurse Mahilither, Nurse Weilly, and
K. Einwalther.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to an informal service agreement
between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, copies of plaintiff’s second
amended complaint and this order are being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin
Department of Justice for service on the following state defendants: Nurse Page
Meuller, Vorb Dr. Murphy, Nurse Mahilither, Nurse Weilly, and K. Einwalther.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement
between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, all defendants shall file a
responsive pleading to the proposed second amended complaint within sixty days of
receiving electronic notice of this order.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 4th day of February, 2017.
s/ Lynn Adelman
______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?