Ammerman, Paul v. Seaman et al

Filing 118

ORDER that Plaintiff Paul D. Ammerman's motion for reconsideration (dkt. # 112 ) is DENIED. Defendant's objection to plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (dkt. # 115 ) is OVERRULED. Responses and objections are due September 15, 2021. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 9/3/2021. (kmd),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PAUL D. AMMERMAN,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
17-cv-800-wmc
NURSE SEAMAN,
Defendant.
Pro se plaintiff Paul D. Ammerman is proceeding to trial in this civil action on an
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Nurse Mary Seaman.
On August 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of the deadline to file
his trial documents and motions in limine, asserting that he was having difficulty getting
copies made at his institution. (Dkt. #111.) Reasonably taking that assertion at face
value, Magistrate Judge Crocker granted the motion and briefly extended plaintiff’s
deadline to September 3, 2021. Defense counsel now objects, fairly questioning whether
plaintiff, who filed a two-page motion for reconsideration with his extension request and
has filed numerous other motions with exhibits as trial approaches, needed the requested
relief for the stated reason. (Dkt. #115.) The court will overrule the objection. That
plaintiff has been able to prepare and file various motions does not mean that he has not
had recent difficulty obtaining copies of other documents or has not also been preparing
his trial submissions. However, in light of plaintiff’s extension, the court will briefly extend
the response deadline from September 10, 2021, to September 15, 2021. Going forward
plaintiff is strongly advised to focus on the trial preparation tasks at hand, rather than past
rulings as the court does not intend to extend any more deadlines in this case.

As for plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (dkt. ##112, 116) of the magistrate
judge’s August 19, 2021, order denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (dkt. #102), the
court construes the motion as an appeal from that order and will deny it because Judge
Crocker’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Indeed, plaintiff primarily
reargues points Judge Crocker reasonably rejected: (1) why a policy produced by defendant
concerning the inmate disciplinary process is responsive to plaintiff’s request for policy or
procedure concerning paperwork staff must file after requesting a security escort (dkt.
#102 at 2-3); and (2) why there is no basis to conclude that defendant lied in some of her
discovery responses (dkt. #102 at 5-6).

And to the extent defendant may have

misremembered whether cells at plaintiff’s institution had intercom buttons, plaintiff
indicates defendant has amended her responses accordingly -- which is not “a little bit too
late,” as plaintiff suggests. (Dkt. #112 at 2.) Now plaintiff further alleges that defense
counsel was untruthful during his deposition concerning the employment status of a nondefendant, but the transcript indicates that counsel was simply denying a rumor plaintiff
had heard about whether this non-defendant had been led out of the institution in
handcuffs. (Dkt. #104 at 15.) Regardless, plaintiff does not explain why that information
is relevant to his claim in this case or otherwise impacted his deposition responses.
Having resolved these matters, the court directs the parties to turn their full
attention to the rapidly approaching October 4, 2021, trial.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1) Plaintiff Paul D. Ammerman’s motion for reconsideration (dkt. #112) is
DENIED.
2) Defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (dkt. #115)
is OVERRULED.
3) Responses and objections are due September 15, 2021.
Entered this 2nd day of September, 2021.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3