Goodwin, Xzavior v. Dittmann, Michael et al

Filing 52

ORDER that Plaintiff Xzavior Goodwin's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 44 , and reply brief, Dkt. 49 , are STRUCK from the record. Plaintiff may have until March 10, 2020, to submit his materials opposing defendant Trevor Zerbe's motion for summary judgment. Defendant may have until March 17, 2020, to submit a reply. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court's preliminary pretrial conference order and attachments, Dkt. 18 , and defendant's summary judgment materials, Dkt. 30 - 34 . Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/24/2020. (rks),(ps)

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

XZAVIOR GOODWIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
17-cv-844-jdp

TREVOR ZERBE,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Xzavior Goodwin alleges that defendant Correctional Officer Trevor Zerbe
failed to get him prompt medical attention after he fell while trying to climb his bunk. Zerbe
has filed a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 30, to which Goodwin has not yet responded.
I granted Goodwin an extension of time after he said that his legal materials were confiscated
from his jailhouse lawyer, Oscar McMillian. See Dkt. 43. Goodwin, through McMillian, asked
for an evidentiary hearing, stating that his right of access to the courts was disrupted by the
confiscation and the prison policy forcing Goodwin and McMillian to share items by mailing
them to each other even though they reside on the same unit. Dkt. 36. I denied the request for
an evidentiary hearing, stating that Goodwin hadn’t shown that the mailing policy violated his
right of access to the courts, and that the state had provided Goodwin with new copies of the
materials confiscated from McMillian Dkt. 43. I set a new summary judgment opposition
deadline for Goodwin and told him that he should contact the clerk of court if he needed any
of the documents on the court docket. Id.
Instead of filing a summary judgment response, Goodwin has filed a motion for
reconsideration of my order denying him relief regarding his access-to-the-courts allegations.
Dkt. 44. But Goodwin did not really file the motion. The document states that it is from

Goodwin, with a signature purporting to be from Goodwin. But the signatures on that motion
and on Goodwin’s reply brief, Dkt. 49, are clearly McMillian’s. Here are the signatures on the
motion for reconsideration and the reply brief:

This isn’t the same handwriting as seen on materials filed directly by Goodwin: the
following two signatures are from Goodwin’s complaint, Dkt. 1, and his objection to a
declaration filed by Zerbe, Dkt. 39.

This is McMillian’s signature on his own declaration provided in support of the
reconsideration motion, Dkt. 50:

From the section symbol and initials on Goodwin’s latest filings, it appears that perhaps
McMillian intended to sign those documents on behalf of Goodwin. But given McMillian’s
long history of working as a jailhouse lawyer, he surely knows that he cannot sign documents

2

on a plaintiff’s behalf. Because the motion for reconsideration and reply brief were not properly
filed with Goodwin’s signature, I will strike them from the record. In any event, even if the
documents had been properly filed, I would deny the motion for reconsideration because once
again, McMillian approaches the issue as being his own right to serve as a jailhouse lawyer,
rather than Goodwin’s right of access to the courts. That type of claim belongs in a lawsuit
brought by McMillian, not this one. The only relevant question is whether Goodwin is unable
to litigate his claims, and Goodwin has not presented evidence showing that to be the case.
Goodwin’s task at this point is to respond to Zerbe’s motion for summary judgment.
This is a relatively simple case about whether Zerbe failed to get Goodwin prompt medical
attention after Goodwin was injured, and now Goodwin needs to explain how he knows that
Zerbe delayed in getting him help or refused to do so. Goodwin should submit a brief opposing
Zerbe’s motion for summary judgment, responses to Zerbe’s proposed findings of fact, and
evidence supporting Goodwin’s proposed facts. I will give him a final chance to submit these
materials, with no more extensions of time. If Goodwin fails to respond by the deadline set
below, I will consider Zerbe’s motion to be unopposed. I will not accept any filing from
Goodwin unless it bears Goodwin’s signature.
I will direct the clerk of court to send Goodwin another copy of Zerbe’s summary
judgment materials and the court’s preliminary pretrial conference order, which includes
instructions on how to file summary judgment materials.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Xzavior Goodwin’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 44, and reply brief,
Dkt. 49, are STRUCK from the record.
2. Plaintiff may have until March 10, 2020, to submit his materials opposing
defendant Trevor Zerbe’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant may have until
March 17, 2020, to submit a reply.
3. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s preliminary
pretrial conference order and attachments, Dkt. 18, and defendant’s summary
judgment materials, Dkt. 30–34.
Entered February 24, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4