Leiser, Jeffrey v. Kloth, Karen et al

Filing 63

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Order and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re 61 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Order, # 3 Docket Sheet) (nln),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JEFFREY D. LEISER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-768-slc

KAREN KLOTH,
REED RICHARDSON,
and PAULA STOUDT,
Defendants.

DOCKETING STATEMENT

Defendants Karen Kloth, Reed Richardson, and Paula Stoudt, by their
attorneys, Attorney General Brad D. Schimel and Assistant Attorney General
Rachel L. Bachhuber, hereby submit the following as their Docking Statement
pursuant to 7th Cir. R.3(c)(1) and 28(a):
1.

The district court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) based on the existence of a federal question.
Specifically, plaintiff Jeffrey L. Leiser brought this action under the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2.

Appellate jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
(i)

This appeal is taken from the order of the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin entered on October 19, 2017, (Dkt. 52)
(the “Order), by the Honorable Stephen L. Crocker, which, among other things,

denied qualified immunity to the defendants and otherwise denied the defendants’
motion for summary judgment.
(ii) & (iii)

No motions have been filed seeking review or alteration of

the Order concerning the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(iv)

A Notice of Appeal was filed with the district court on November

(v)

This is a direct appeal of a decision by a magistrate judge.

17, 2017.

Plaintiff Leiser consented in writing on April 26, 2016, to the entry of final
judgment by the magistrate judge (Dkt. 5); consent in writing was also filed by the
defendants on April 26, 2016. (Dkt. 6.)
3.

The Order is immediately appealable as a final decision of the district

court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 pursuant to the collateral order doctrine insofar as the
Order denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion under the doctrine of
qualified immunity. Specifically, in denying the defendants’ motion for qualified
immunity, the district court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the
conduct of these defendants, as alleged, violated the Eighth Amendment and that
such a constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the events in
question. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (holding that the denial of
qualified immunity, if it turns on a question of law, is an appealable final decision
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291); see also Gibbs v. Lomas, 755 F.3d 529, 535–36 (7th Cir.
2014). The Order is also immediately appealable under the doctrine of pendant
appellate jurisdiction insofar as the Order denied summary judgment to the

-2-

defendants on the merits of Leiser’s claims alleging violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The
determination denying the defendants summary judgment on the merits is
intertwined with the determination on defendants’ motion for qualified immunity in
that it turned on the question of whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the
conduct of the defendants was in violation of Leiser’s Eighth Amendment rights,
which is an issue that also formed part of the qualified immunity analysis. See, e.g.,
Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638, 647 (7th Cir. 2012).
Dated this 17th day of November, 2017.
BRAD D. SCHIMEL
Wisconsin Attorney General
/s/ Rachel L. Bachhuber
RACHEL L. BACHHUBER*
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1052533
Attorneys for Defendants
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Post Office Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
*Counsel of Record

-3-