Daniels v. Deblanc et al

Filing 142

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 6/1/2020 GRANTING 136 plaintiff's motion to clarify. (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

KYLE KELLER,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CLARIFY (DKT. NO. 136)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Remo Harrison Daniels is a Wisconsin state inmate and is
representing himself in this civil rights lawsuit. On April 13, 2020, the court
granted summary judgment in favor of all but one of the defendants. Dkt. No.
134. The defendants conceded there were disputes of material fact with respect
to defendant Kyle Keller, dkt. no. 132 at 1, 2, and the court denied the
plaintiff’s motion to grant summary judgment against Keller, dkt. no. 134 at
15. Keller is the only remaining defendant.
After receiving the court’s order, the plaintiff filed a letter, dkt. no. 135,
then a motion to clarify, dkt. no. 136, asking the court to explain why it
seemed (to him) that the court had granted summary judgment both for and
against defendant Dr. Kristina deBlanc. The court scheduled a telephonic
status conference to address that motion, and to talk about next steps in the
case. Dkt. No. 137. The plaintiff then filed a motion to stay the status
conference until the court clarified its order. Dkt. No. 138. The court denied

1

Case 2:17-cv-00681-PP Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 3 Document 142

that motion, indicating that it planned to address the motion to clarify at the
hearing (scheduled for May 26, 2020). Dkt. No. 139.
The court conducted that hearing at 1:30 p.m. on May 26, 2020.
However, despite several attempts by the court’s staff, the court was not able to
successfully reach the plaintiff at Green Bay Correctional Institution, where he
is currently an inmate. The court obtained—and followed—the directions
provided by the prison for contacting the plaintiff for the hearing, but no call
placed by the court’s deputy was successful. The court spoke briefly with
counsel for the defendant and explained that given the circumstances, it
intended to address the plaintiff’s motion for clarification through a written
order.
In his motion, the plaintiff asked the court to “explain whether Daniels or
[deBlanc] is entitled to summary judgment” because he believed the court
granted summary judgment in favor of both of them with respect to deBlanc’s
liability. Dkt. No. 136 at 2. He quoted a portion of the court’s decision which he
believed indicates that the court found that he was entitled to summary
judgment against DeBlanc. The portion of the court’s order that the plaintiff
quoted, however, was itself a quote—the court was quoting what the plaintiff
said in his own brief. See id. at 16 (citing Dkt. No. 92 at 6–7). Before inserting
the block quote from the plaintiff’s brief, the court wrote: “In his brief in
support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff stated:” Dkt. No. 134
at 16.

2

Case 2:17-cv-00681-PP Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 3 Document 142

After quoting his arguments, the court explained that the plaintiff’s
summary judgment brief differed from his complaint with respect to the date he
alleged deBlanc was deliberately indifferent. Id. It then went on to say that the
defendants did not address deBlanc in their response to the plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment or in their brief in support of their own summary
judgment motion. Id. at 16–17. Despite this fact, the court found that deBlanc
was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff’s allegations against
her were based solely on his assumptions and because he did not describe any
harm he suffered as the result of the actions he assumed she took. Id. at 17.
The court did not rule that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment
against deBlanc; the court ruled that deBlanc is entitled to summary judgment
in her favor. Dkt. No. 134 at 16–17. That was and remains the court’s finding.
The court will schedule another telephone status conference to discuss
the next steps in the case. The court will mail the plaintiff notice of the date
and time of that hearing once it is set.
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to clarify. Dkt. No. 136.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 1st day of June, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge

3

Case 2:17-cv-00681-PP Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 3 Document 142