Davis, James v. Meisner, Michael et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying defendants' 52 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying plaintiff's 79 Motion to deny, strike, and sanction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 4/28/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES JERMAINE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

OPINION and ORDER

v.
Case No. 15-cv-268-slc
MICHAEL MEISNER, et al.,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff James Davis is proceeding in this case on (1) Eighth Amendment claims against
prison officers at Columbia Correctional Institution related to how they handled his cell removal and
medical care following a suicide attempt, and (2) a First Amendment claim against defendant Sandra
Ashton related to her issuance of conduct reports. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
(Dkt. 52.) Plaintiff filed materials in opposition to that motion, and he separately filed a motion
asking that I (1) deny defendants’ motion, (2) strike the declaration of defendant Sandra Ashton,
and (3) sanction defendants for Ashton’s alleged failure to admit a certain fact in response to his
discovery requests. (Dkt. 79.) As defendants concede that Davis submitted sufficient disputed
material facts to warrant a trial as to both claims (dkt. 86) and my review of the parties’ submissions
leads me to the same conclusion, I will deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment without
further discussion and issue a trial preparation order for Davis to use as a roadmap as he prepares
for the July 31, 2017, trial.1 For the reasons that following briefly, I am denying plaintiff’s motion.
Because I am denying defendants’ motion, Davis’s first request is moot. As to his second and
third requests, Davis has not established that sanctions are appropriate. Under Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

Defendants also report that they are troubled by Davis’s evidentiary submissions in opposition to
their motion. Defendants are reviewing them to determine whether Davis submitted false
representations egregious enough to warrant a defense request for sanctions or a referral to the United
States Attorney. Duly noted. This court does not intend to address this matter further absent a
motion requesting court action.

37(c)(2), the court may issue sanctions “[i]f a party fails to admit what is requested under Rule 36
and if the requesting party later proves a document to be genuine or the matter true.” Davis claims
that he requested Ashton “to admit that on July 17, 2013, Ashton was aware and knew that Davis
reported her to her supervisor Lt. Morrison regarding the way she had given him his meal bag in
disarray,” and that her denial in response was false. In support, Davis cites to the conduct report
Ashton issued about that incident as well as witness statements that Ashton and Lt. Morrison
submitted related to that conduct report (Davis Decl., Exhs. F, H, I, dkts. 69-4, 69-6, 69-7.) In the
conduct report signed by Ashton, she wrote that during their interaction on July 17, her supervisor
was present and “Davis began claiming that staff had removed all the meal contents from the wax
bags and ‘dumped’ them all together.” (Id. at 69-4, at 1.) The witness statements indicate that
Ashton “was able to hear [Davis] speaking to the supervisor regarding his meal bag.” (Id. at 69-7,
at 2.)
These documents do not prove that Ashton knew that Davis was complaining about her in
particular. They only establish that Ashton heard Davis complain to her supervisor about how staff
had given him his meal bag. Davis may cross-examine Ashton about this matter at trial, but that’s
it. Davis has not made his case for sanctions.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 52) and plaintiff
James Davis’s motion to deny, strike, and sanction (dkt. 79) both are DENIED.
Entered this 27th day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge