Keys, Louis et al v. Litscher, Jon et al

Filing 91

ORDER that plaintiff Louis Keys's motion for leave to depose defendants (dkt. 56 ).Plaintiff's motion to clarify or add claims (dkt. 84 ) is denied. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 9/17/2020. (rks),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LOUIS KEYS,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
18-cv-303-wmc
GABRIEL CHINIAS, LINDSAY WALKER,
OFFICER RAMSDEN, NURSE GIBBONS,
and SGT. EBBERT,
Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Louis Keys is proceeding against employees of Columbia Correctional
Institution (“CCI”) on Eighth Amendment and negligence claims related to three discrete
instances between September 2017 and January 2018 when CCI staff mishandled his
medications. Specifically, Keys alleges that three correctional officers and a nurse failed to
provide proper medical treatment after he took the wrong medication, and a unit manager
failed to take corrective action after the first incident. (Dkt. #21 at 11.) Before the court
are two motions by Keys: a motion for leave to depose defendants and a motion to clarify
or add claims. (Dkt. ##56, 84.)1 For the following reasons, the court will deny both of
Keys’s motions.

I. Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants
Keys seeks leave to depose defendants. (Dkt. #56.) Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(3), depositions must be recorded and the party requesting the deposition
must pay for the recording and transcripts. The court does not have funds to pay for

Defendants also have filed a motion to dismiss in part and for summary judgment, and Keys has
filed a brief in opposition. (Dkt. ##58, 74.) The court will take up this motion in a separate order.
1

prisoners to take depositions. Since Keys has not indicated that he is willing to pay to
record the depositions he requests, the court will deny his request. Keys may renew this
request if he is willing to pay the costs associated with taking defendants’ depositions and
provides an updated prisoner trust fund account statement verifying that he had funds
available for that purpose.

II. Motion to Clarify or Add Claims
Keys also seeks to amend his allegations regarding defendants Chinias and Ramsden
and dismissed defendant Lloyd in the hope that the court will now allow Keys to proceed
against them on previously dismissed claims related to the administration of incorrect
medication. (Dkt. #84.) Specifically, Keys asks the court to reconsider allowing him to
proceed against these correctional officers on claims that they each acted with deliberate
indifference by giving Keys the wrong medication on September 8, 2017, December 3,
2017, and January 2, 2018, respectively. In support, Keys now alleges that each of these
officers acted intentionally. (Dkt. #84 at 1.)
Keys gives no good reason for the nearly one-year delay in seeking this relief. The
court would likely have been less skeptical of an earlier motion, but allowing Keys to
proceed on these claims now, and against a previously dismissed defendant, would be
simply too prejudicial to defendants, who have already devoted considerable resources to
responding to Keys’s other motions and to preparing their own dispositive motion. More
importantly, Keys gives the court no reason to change its disposition of these claims. The
court’s screening order clearly explains why Keys cannot proceed against these correctional
officers on these claims (dkt. #21 at 5), and Keys offers no factual allegations in support

2

of his new, conclusory assertion that each of these officers intentionally gave him the wrong
medication. Accordingly, the court will deny his motion. See Sound of Music v. Minnesota
Mining and Mfg. Co., 477 F.3d 910, 922-23 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a motion to
amend a complaint may be denied as unduly prejudicial to the opposing party or ultimately
futile).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Louis Keys’s motion for leave to depose defendants (dkt. #56) is
DENIED.
2) Plaintiff’s motion to clarify or add claims (dkt. #84) is DENIED.
Entered this 17th day of September, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3