Bradley, Brandon v. Dane Co.Sheriff's Dept. et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 58 motion to compel; denying 62 motion for sanctions; denying 70 motion for add new evidence into exhibit. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/4/2021. (jef),(ps)

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

BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR., a.k.a.
BRITTNEY HARDAWAY BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
DAVID MAHONEY, TOUA VUE,
BEN JENNINGS, MARTIN KNOLL, JACOB ZILLI,
DERRICK WALKER, TIM ALGIERS, MATT EARLL,
DRITTAN LAZAMI, FRANK SMILGIS,
BERNARD BAKER, and JOHN KLEIN,

20-cv-50-jdp

Defendants.1
Pro se plaintiff Brandon D. Bradley, Sr., also known as Brittney Bradley, contends that
she was mistreated by defendant employees of the Dane County Sheriff’s Office after her
kidney was surgically removed while she was incarcerated at the Dane County jail. Bradley has
filed three motions: (1) a motion to compel defendants to respond to her discovery requests,
Dkt. 58; (2) a motion to sanction defendants for their failure to respond to the same discovery
requests, Dkt. 62; and (3) a motion “to add new evidence into exhibit,” Dkt. 70.
Bradley filed identical copies of all three motions in another lawsuit against employees
of the Dane County Sheriff’s Office. Bradley v. Van Norm, 20-cv-49-jdp (W.D. Wis.). I denied
the first two motions in in the ’49 case because they were entirely unsupported. Id., Dkt. 77. I
will deny the first two motions in this case for the same reasons stated in that order. I denied
the third motion in the ’49 case because Bradley didn’t identify what evidence she wished to

1

I have updated the caption to reflect the correct spelling of defendants’ names as indicated in
their amended answer, Dkt. 57.

submit or identify what motion the evidence was related to. Id., Dkt. 78. Bradley’s third motion
in this case suffers from the same flaws, so I will deny it as well.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion of plaintiff Brandon D. Bradley, Sr., a.k.a. Brittney Hardaway Bradley,
to compel discovery, Dkt. 58, is DENIED.
2. Bradley’s motion for sanctions, Dkt. 62, is DENIED.
3. Bradley’s motion to add new evidence into exhibit, Dkt. 70, is DENIED.
Entered June 4, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2