Robinson, Aldric v. Foster, Brian et al

Filing 32

ORDER that Aldric Robinson's motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief, Dkt. 29 , is GRANTED. Robinson's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 19 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 02/07/2019. (rks),(ps)

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

ALDRIC ROBINSON,

v.

Plaintiff,

OPINION and ORDER
17-cv-586-jdp

JACOB GRIPENTROG and
BRANDON MUELLER,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff and prisoner Aldric Robinson is proceeding on a claim that defendants
Jacob Gripentrog and Brandon Mueller failed to prevent Robinson from harming himself, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Two motions are before the court: (1) Robinson’s motion
for summary judgment, Dkt. 19; and (2) Robinson’s motion for an extension of time to file a
reply brief in support of his summary judgment motion, Dkt. 29.
I will grant Robinson’s motion to file a late reply brief, which the court has now received.
Dkt. 31. But I will deny Robinson’s motion for summary judgment because there is a genuine
issue of material fact that must be resolved by the jury.

ANALYSIS
To prevail on his claim at summary judgment, Robinson must show that there are no
genuine disputes of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). In other words, he must show that no reasonable jury could find in favor of
defendants at trial. Canen v. Chapman, 847 F.3d 407, 412 (7th Cir. 2017). Robinson has not
made that showing.

To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim that prison staff failed to protect a prisoner
from self-harm, the prisoner must show three things: (1) there was a strong likelihood that he
would seriously harm himself in the near future; (2) defendants knew of that strong likelihood;
and (3) defendants consciously failed to take reasonable measures to prevent him from harming
himself. Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012). To support his claim
in this case, Robinson cites his declaration, in which he alleges that he told both defendants
that he was suicidal, but they refused to take any action to help him. Dkt. 22, ¶ 10–14. But,
in their declarations, both defendants deny that Robinson told them that he was suicidal. Dkt.
27, ¶¶ 7–8; Dkt. 28, ¶ 6. This means that there is a genuine dispute whether defendants knew
of a strong likelihood that Robinson would seriously harm himself. Because I cannot determine
on a motion for summary judgment whether Robinson or defendants are more credible,
Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 774–75 (7th Cir. 2008), I will deny Robinson’s summary
judgment motion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Aldric Robinson’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief, Dkt.
29, is GRANTED.
2. Robinson’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 19, is DENIED.
Entered February 7, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2