Edwards v. THURMER et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/7/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------TERRANCE EDWARDS, P la i n t i f f , v. JER EM Y STANIEC, JOE BEAHM, T R AV IS CAUL, J. HAWKINS, Sgt. and ERIC KRUEGER, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------Now before the court is a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff Terrance Edw ards, in which he argues that it was error to grant defendants' motion for summary judgm ent as to defendant Greff. Plaintiff contends that his sworn complaint includes allegations sufficient to establish that defendant Greff failed to intervene when other defendan ts used excessive force against him. Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Plaintiff did not cite his complaint at summary ju dgm en t, only a two-page excerpt from his complaint that did not even mention defendant G reff. At any rate, even if plaintiff had properly cited his full sworn complaint in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, the allegations regarding defendant Greff were OR DER 0 8 - cv -3 5 2 - b b c

1

no t sufficiently specific to survive summary judgment, which requires that plaintiff set forth "sp ecific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." In this case, plaintiff would have to show that defendant Greff failed to intervene "in reckless disregard" of plaintiff's right to be free from excessive use of force against him. Miller v. Smith, 220 F.3d 491, 495 (7th Cir. 2000). T h e complaint does not explain what defendant Greff was doing during defendants' use of fo rce or describe the duration of the use of force. The complaint is too vague to allow a reaso n ab le jury to find that defendant Greff had a "realistic opportunity to step forward and preven t" the allegedly excessive force, which is what plaintiff would have to establish to prevail on his failure to intervene claim. Miller, 220 F.3d at 495.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, dkt. #78, is DENIED. E n tered this 7t h day of July, 2009. B Y THE COURT:

_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

2