Smith, Antonio v. Kolbo et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying plaintiff Antonio J. Smith's 15 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying plaintiff's 16 motion regarding the deposit of damages awarded in this lawsuit. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/14/2018. (jef),(ps)

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

ANTONIO J. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SGT. KOLBO, JOHN DOE OFFICERS,
JOHN DOE SGT., and JOHN DOE WHITE SHIRTS,

18-cv-385-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Antonio J. Smith, appearing pro se, is a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure
Program Facility. I granted Smith leave to proceed on claims that defendant prison officials
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by restraining him in a bed for more than 20 hours
without bathroom breaks.
Smith has filed two motions: a motion he calls one for partial summary judgment
against state officials who denied an open-records request he made under Wisconsin law to
obtain the video recording of the incident, Dkt. 15, and a motion to have any damages awarded
in the case deposited in his prison release account, Dkt. 16. I will deny both motions.
Smith calls his motion regarding his open-records request a motion for summary
judgment, but this case does not involve any claims regarding these requests; the point of
summary judgment is to resolve claims or defenses, not contest evidentiary issues. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a) (“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense —
or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought.”). Smith says
that under Wisconsin law he has the right to litigate a denied open-records request, see Wis.
Stat. § 19.37, but that statute says that the person denied the records may file a mandamus
action. That is not an action this court can entertain, because this court cannot order state

officials to comply with state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
106 (1984) (“[I]t is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a
federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law. Such a result
conflicts directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment.”).
Smith is free to file a mandamus action in state court.
I also take Smith to be saying that his right of access to this court is being frustrated by
the records denial. He says that without the video, he will not be able to identify the “John
Doe” defendants against whom he is proceeding. This court can consider access-to-the-courts
issues in two different ways: as standalone claims for a violation of one’s constitutional rights,
or as a motion within a lawsuit to guarantee that a prisoner is not being blocked from litigating
the case.
I will deny Smith’s motion under either theory. He hasn’t amended his complaint to
add a new access-to-the-courts claim, but even if he did, his efforts to identify the Doe
defendants have not yet been thwarted. As I explained to Smith in my order screening his
complaint, Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker will hold a preliminary pretrial conference by
telephone, at which he will explain the process for Smith to use discovery requests to identify
the names of the Doe defendants and to amend the complaint to include the proper identities
of these defendants. Regardless of state officials’ interpretation of the open records law, the
defendants in this case have an obligation to either turn over relevant information Smith seeks
or to object to Smith’s requests. If they do not provide Smith with the recording after he makes
a discovery request for it, he can file a motion to compel discovery of the recording.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Antonio J. Smith’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 15, is
DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion regarding the deposit of damages awarded in this lawsuit, Dkt. 16,
is DENIED.
Entered September 14, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3