Daniels v. Deblanc et al

Filing 123

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 5/16/2019 DENYING 118 plaintiff's motion to notify the court of misconduct. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Remo Daniels at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
REMO HARRISON DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-681-pp

KRISTINA DeBLANC, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO NOTIFY COURT OF
MISCONDUCT (DKT. NO. 118)
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff is an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution and is
representing himself. He has filed a document titled “Motion to Alarm the
Court’s,” dkt. no. 118, which the court construed as a motion to compel, dkt.
no. 120 at 5–6. He asks the court to “investigate” a situation. The defendants
have responded to the motion. Dkt. No. 121.
The plaintiff states that he has asked the defendants to produce video
evidence from November 1, 2016; January 16, 2017; February 7, February 17,
and February 18, 2017; March 11, 2017; July 27, 2017; and “other dates.”
Dkt. No. 118 at 2. He references another of his lawsuits, Case No. 17-cv-1080,
in which the defendants produced video evidence from January 3, January 9,
and January 26, 2017; February 11 and February 18, 2017; and March 11,
2017. (The defendants also have produced footage from March 11, 2017 in that
case.) The plaintiff reasons that if the defendants produced video evidence in
his other case, they should be able to produce it in this one. He does not accept
1

the defendants’ contention that they don’t have the footage, and he asks the
court to “investigate.”
The plaintiff has not explained why he needs the footage, what he
believes the footage will show, or how the footage is relevant to this case. And,
as implied in the prior paragraph, the defendants have asserted through their
lawyers that they do not have the video footage. The defendants’ attorney is an
officer of the court, and is ethically obligated to be truthful with the court—a
serious ethical obligation to which all attorneys are subject. The plaintiff has
not given the court any reason to disbelieve the defendants when they say they
don’t have the footage, and there is no reason for the court to “investigate.”
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to inform, which the court
construes as a motion to compel. Dkt. No. 118.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 16th day of May, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

2