Evans v. Wolf et al
Filing
39
DECISION AND ORDER granting 38 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, dismissing all claims against Patrick A Mahoney and denying 37 MOTION to Compel as moot. Defendants are to file a responsive pleading within 60 days of this order. Dispositive motions are due 6 months after an answer is filed. Signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 8/3/2018. (cc: all counsel via CM/ECF, Tommie E Evans via U.S. Mail)(Griesbach, William)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TOMMIE E. EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-C-1435
NATHAN WOLF, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiff Tommie Evans, who is currently incarcerated at Wisconsin Secure Program
Facility but was incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution at all times relevant to the
complaint, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were
violated. Evans’ claims arise from an incident where he was forgotten in an interview cell for several
hours after an attorney visit.1 While he was in the cell, he was handcuffed to the table. Evans alleges
that the cell suffered from faulty heating and after several hours he suffered a panic attack and passed
out. After he was found, he was transported to a hospital to address injuries to his right shoulder
and hypothermia. On November 29, 2017, the court screened Evans’ first amended complaint
(FAC) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b). ECF No. 13. In that order, the court allowed Evans
to proceed on claims of deliberate indifference against defendants John Doe, Jane Doe, Mahoney,
and Dorn for their actions in the events.
1
For a more detailed explanation of the facts, see the court’s screening order of the first
amended complaint. ECF No. 13.
Now before the court is Evan’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC),
in which he identifies the John and Jane Doe defendants. Because the court has already screened the
factual allegations against the Doe defendants, the court will not re-screen the allegations here.
Rather, the court will identify which named defendant corresponds to each Doe defendant.
Evans identifies Bobby Blake as sergeant Jane Doe, who failed to have him moved to his cell
after he asked to move him when his attorney visit concluded. Evans identifies Jacob Dorn and
Kevin Sonntag as the officers who failed to timely transfer Evans back to his cell. The court notes
that in Evans’ FAC, he identified Jacob Dorn and Patrick Mahoney as these officers. Because Evans
now identifies Kevin Sonntag instead of Patrick Mahoney, the court finds that Sonntag is the proper
defendant and Mahoney will be dismissed from the case. Evans identifies Andrew Moungey as the
John Doe defendant who refused to allow him food or to shower off the urination still on his body
when he returned from the hospital.
The court notes that Evans now seeks to bring a claim for deliberate indifference against
Officer Quinn Warner. Because this claim was not in the FAC, it has not been screened. The court
must dismiss a claim that a prisoner raises if it is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989); Hutchinson ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997). Evans alleges
that Warner heard Evans yelling and told Dorn and Sonntag about it but that Warner had failed to
take any further action to get him out of the cell despite his yelling. In order to state a claim for
deliberate indifference to his safety, a prisoner must allege that a prison official “knows of and
2
disregards an excessive risk to inmate heath or safety. . . .” Pavlick v. Mifflin, 90 F.3d 205, 208 (7th
Cir. 1996). At this stage of the proceedings, Evans has sufficiently stated a claim against Warner.
Additionally, prior to this motion, Evans filed a motion to compel discovery in order to
identify his missing Doe defendants. Because Evans has now identified his Doe defendants, the court
will deny his motion to compel as moot.
In sum, Evans has sufficiently stated a claim against Defendants Sonntag, Warner, Dorn,
Moungey, and Blake. Pursuant to an informal service agreement between this court and the
Wisconsin Department of Justice, copies of this second amended complaint will be served on
defendants and defendants will have sixty days to file a response. Pursuant to the June 6, 2018
telephonic hearing, discovery and dispositive motions will be due six months after Defendants file
their answer to the SAC.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to docket the Second
Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Mahoney is
DISMISSED.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 37) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
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 state defendants.
3
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement between the
Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, the defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the
complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDER that, pursuant to the court’s minute order from the June 6, 2018
telephonic hearing, discovery and dispositive motions will be due six months after the answer is
filed.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the officer in charge of the
agency where the inmate is confined.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Prisoner E-Filing Program, the plaintiff
shall submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail
documents to the Court. The Prisoner E-Filing Program is in effect at Columbia Correctional
Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Green Bay Correctional Institution, Oshkosh
Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, and Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.
If the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at a Prisoner E-Filing Program institution, he will be required
to submit all correspondence and legal material to:
Honorable William C. Griesbach
c/o Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
125 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 102
Green Bay, WI 54301
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will
only delay the processing of the matter.
4
The plaintiff is further advised that failure to make a timely submission may result in the
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address. Failure to
do so could result in orders or other information not being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal
rights of the parties. Therefore, failure to provide your correct address could result in dismissal of
your case for failure to prosecute.
SO ORDERED this
2nd
day of August, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court
5
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?