Muehl v. Thurmer et al

Filing 105

ORDER denying 101 Motion for Pretrial Ruling on Question of Serious Medical Need ; denying 102 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/9/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------MICHAEL MUEHL, P la i n ti f f , v. G A IL WALTZ, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------Trial in this prisoner civil rights case for inadequate medical care is scheduled for M arch 29, 2010. The question for trial is whether defendant Gail Waltz violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by failing to treat wounds on his wrists. Defendant has filed three m otions in limine and a "Motion for a Pretrial Ruling on Question of Serious Medical N eed." Dkts. ##101 and 102. In a motion for a "pretrial ruling," defendant requests permission to present testim ony to the court before the jury is empaneled from a doctor at the prison to show that plaintiff's wrist wounds were not serious. Although defendant does not say so explicitly, presum ably she plans to ask the court at the conclusion of such testimony to rule as a matter of law that plaintiff cannot prove his claim under the Eighth Amendment. Gayton v. 1 ORDER 0 9 - cv -1 6 - b b c

M cC oy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010) (Eighth Amendment not triggered unless priso ner has "serious medical need"). That motion will be denied. In the summary judgment opinion, I did not resolve the question whether plaintiff's w o u n d was a "serious medical need" because defendant did not raise that issue in her motion for summary judgment. Defendant seems to be making a second attempt at summary judgm ent, but it is too late for that. Defendant cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e) as the authority fo r her motion, but that rule simply permits a court to hold a pretrial conference; it does not supp ort the view that a court may take evidence and dismiss claims at the conference. If d efen dan t believes that plaintiff will be unable to prove his claim, she is free to move for judgm ent as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 after the evidence has been presented to the jury. Defendant's first motion in limine is to prohibit Kurtis Jones from testifying at trial. Although defendant argues that Jones does not have any relevant information, plaintiff has represented that Jones has personal knowledge of the severity of his wounds because he was housed near plaintiff on the day in question. That is sufficient to permit Jones to testify. D e fen dan t's second and third motions in limine are to prohibit plaintiff from p resen tin g evidence at trial about any claims that I dismissed at summary judgment or any other complaints or lawsuits filed against defendant. I will reserve a ruling on these until the final pretrial conference. Although it seems unlikely that those other matters would be 2

relevant to plaintiff's claim, defendant does not provide any details about the allegations she w ishes to exclude. If plaintiff intends to introduce any evidence on these matters, he should b e prepared to show at the final pretrial conference why the evidence is relevant and not unfa ir ly prejudicial.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that 1. Defendant Gail Waltz's "motion for a pretrial ruling on the question of serious m edical need," dkt. #101, is DENIED. 2. Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Kurtis Jones from trial, dkt. # 102, is DENIED. E n tered this 9 t h day of March, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3