Edwards, Tremayne v. Haines, Tim et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying plaintiff's 24 motion for default judgment. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/31/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

TREMAYNE EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIM HAINES and C.O. GILARDI,

ORDER
16-cv-317-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Tremayne Edwards brings claims that C.O. Gilardi sexually harassed him
during a drug test and that defendant Warden Tim Haines either implemented the drug test
policy for the purposes of humiliating inmates or that he refused to change the policy even
after the potential for harassment was made clear to him. On January 4, 2017, I denied
Edwards’s motion for default judgment, which was filed on the theory that defendants’
answer was late.
Immediately following that order, Edwards filed a new motion for default judgment.
He now contends that judgment should be entered against Haines as a sanction for him
violating Wisconsin law by falsely claiming that he was the warden at the Wisconsin Secure
Program Facility, even though he failed to properly execute the official oath of office and
bond required of prison wardens. See Wis. Stat. §§ 19.01 (“Oaths and bonds”); 302.03
(applying § 19.01 to wardens). As evidence, Edwards submits a letter from the Grant County
clerk stating that Haines’s oath is not on file there.
This evidence does not prove Haines’s failure to execute the oath and bond, because
as a state official, he is not required to file those documents with the county clerk. Rather, he
must file them with the secretary of state. Section 19.01(4)(a)(9). But in any event, this issue
is irrelevant to Edward’s claims. This case is not about Haines’s compliance with state
statutes; Edwards alleged that Haines was the warden, and Haines agrees that he was in fact

the warden. Prison officials are culpable for constitutional violations in which they are
involved, so if Haines was involved in violating Edwards’s rights while operating as the
warden (or any other position, for that matter), Edwards can prevail on his claims. The
technicalities of Haines’s oath do not matter. Accordingly, I will deny Edwards’s motion.
This is Edwards’s second unsuccessful motion for default judgment. It is highly
unlikely that he will be able to win this case on technical procedural grounds. I urge him to
focus his efforts on litigating the substance of his claims going forward.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Tremayne Edwards’s motion for default judgment,
Dkt. 24, is DENIED.
Entered January 31, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2