Guyton v. Krembs et al
Filing
23
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff) (asc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LORENZO GUYTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 19-CV-573
KEVIN KREMBS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Lorenzo Guyton, a Wisconsin inmate representing himself, filed a lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Guyton alleges Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claims and state law negligence claims against the defendants. Before me is the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. They argue that Guyton’s lawsuit, which
he filed on April 22, 2019, is barred by a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement
signed by the parties in June 2018. For the reasons explained below, I will grant the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
RELEVANT FACTS
Guyton and the State entered into a Mutual Release and Settlement
Agreement in connection with litigation that was pending in the Western District of
Wisconsin. (ECF No. 19-1 at ¶¶ 1-3.) Guyon signed the agreement on June 25, 2018,
and the State signed the agreement on June 29, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 1.) On July 9, 2018,
the State sent a check in the amount of $30,000 to Guyton’s attorney, who the court
had recruited to represent Guyton. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
The three-page settlement agreement required Guyton to dismiss the Western
District case. (Id. at ¶ 3.) According to the defendants, the settlement agreement also
contained the following release-of-claims and covenant-not-to-sue provisions:
RELEASE OF CLAIMS. In exchange for the consideration listed
above, Plaintiff releases and forever discharges the State, the DOC, the
Defendants, and their officers, agents, employees, successors, personal
representatives, and insurers (the “Released Parties”) from any and all
manner of action or actions (including case or causes of action, suits,
debts, covenants, agreements, liabilities, rights, damages, costs, claims
of interest, awards of attorney fees, claims and demands of every kind
and nature whatsoever, in law or equity, whether based on State or
Federal law), that relate to any action or inaction—of any State of
Wisconsin or DOC employee—that took place on any date before this
agreement is fully executed.
COVENANT NOT TO SUE: This Agreement shall also be deemed a
covenant by the Plaintiff not to sue any of the Released Parties for any
of all matters released or discharged by the Agreement, not to file any
appeal of any court decision in the Action, and not to file any new
lawsuits, claims, or complaints in any court, or with any state or federal
agency or licensing board against Defendants or their heirs, or against
the State, the DOC, its successors, agents, and assigns or any former or
current employee of the State if such claims relate to any action or
inaction—of any State of Wisconsin or DOC employee—that took place
on any date before this agreement is fully executed.
(ECF No, 13 at ¶ 4.)
According to Guyton, his attorney “was an under cover [sic] agent of the State
working to undermine the case by withholding crucial facts of the settlement.” (ECF
No. 19-1 at ¶ 6.) Guyton asserts that his attorney gave him only pages one and three
of the agreement; he states that his attorney did not give him page two, which is the
2
page containing the release-of-claims and covenant-not-to-sue provisions. (Id.; ECF
No. 20 at ¶ 6.) Guyton explains that he did not learn about those provisions until the
defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19-1 at ¶ 6; ECF No.
20 at ¶ 6.)
ANALYSIS
There is no dispute over whether this lawsuit is covered by the release-ofclaims and the covenant-not-to-sue provisions in the 2018 agreement. Those
provisions clearly state that Guyton cannot sue on the basis of any action or inaction
by State employees that took place prior to the full execution of the agreement. The
agreement was fully executed on June 29, 2018. The alleged misconduct by State
employees at issue in this case happened in June 2017, a year before the agreement
was executed. Accordingly, those provisions apply to this lawsuit.
Guyton argues that, regardless of whether those provisions apply to this
lawsuit, the court should not enforce the provisions against him because he did not
know about the provisions when he signed the agreement. Guyton alleges that his
attorney misled him about what he was agreeing to by withholding the page of the
agreement that contained those provisions. Guyton lumps the State into his
attorney’s alleged deception, but he offers no evidence from which a jury could
reasonably conclude that the State knew Guyton’s attorney had withheld that page
of the agreement. According to the defendants, the State’s attorneys communicated
directly with Guyton’s attorney; they had no knowledge of or control over the
communications between Guyton and his attorney. Guyton offers no evidence to
3
dispute this assertion. In fact, he concedes that, “at no time during the signing of the
agreement was any representative present from the defendants[’] side. Only the
plaintiff and attorney Martin R. Stein were present during the signing of the
document, and no one from defendants[’] side can verify what was told to the plaintiff
by attorney Stein. . . .” (ECF No. 20 at ¶ 9.)
As the Seventh Circuit has observed, “If an attorney’s conduct falls
substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances, the client’s remedy
is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice. But keeping a suit alive merely
because plaintiff should not be penalized for the omissions of his own attorney would
be visiting the sins of the plaintiff’s lawyer upon the defendant.” Baptist v. City of
Kankee, 481 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). I will not penalize the State based on Guyton’s allegations that his attorney
failed to provide him with the release-of-claims and the covenant-not-to-sue
provisions in the 2018 agreement. Because those provisions preclude Guyton from
pursuing the claims at issue in this lawsuit, the defendants are entitled to summary
judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
This order and the judgment to follow are final. A dissatisfied party may appeal
this court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this
court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See Federal Rule of
4
Appellate Procedure 3, 4. This court may extend this deadline if a party timely
requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able
to meet the 30-day deadline. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A).
Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this court to alter or amend its
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. The court
cannot extend this deadline. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2). Any motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time,
generally no more than one year after the entry of the judgment. The court cannot
extend this deadline. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2).
A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine, what,
if any, further action is appropriate in a case.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 25th day of November, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
s/Nancy Joseph
NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge
___ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _____ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___
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?