The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
ENNIS LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 16-cv-241-pp
JACOB GENNRICH, MICHAEL HUBER,
and MICHAEL NINKOVIC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT.
NO. 205) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 217)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Ennis Lee Brown, who is in custody at the Wisconsin Secure
Program Facility and is representing himself, filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants violated his rights in 2012 and 2013 when he was
confined at the Milwaukee County Jail. Dkt. No. 10. The court granted the
plaintiff leave to proceed on Claim 1 from his amended complaint (dkt. no. 10,
#5 at p.5) that the defendants used excessive force against him and failed to
provide him with proper medical care. Dkt. No. 106 at 4. On March 2, 2021,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. Dkt. No. 201. Specifically, the court denied the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s excessive force
claim that Officer Ninkovic slammed his head against a wall and choked him as
well as his excessive force claim against Officers Ninkovic, Huber and Gennrich
for allegedly grabbing the plaintiff’s RIPP belt and pulling the plaintiff’s arms
through the chute on his cell door. Id. at 17-20. The court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s medical care
claims against Officer Hannah and Huber. Id. at 23-24.
On March 15, 2021, the plaintiff filed a document titled “standing
objection” in which he asserted some objections to the court’s summary
judgment decision. Dkt. No. 205. On April 29, 2021, the court held a
telephonic status conference during which it set final pretrial conference and
trial dates. Dkt. No. 212. During the status conference, the court asked the
plaintiff if he intended his standing objections as a motion for reconsideration;
the plaintiff said he did and the court ordered briefing on the motion. In
addition to the motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff since has filed a motion
to compel. Dkt. No. 217. The court addresses both motions below.
In his motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff states that the court failed
to include facts stating that he was under the care of mental health staff and
mental health medication on the date of the incident (February 6, 2013) as well
as facts relating to the defendants’ failure to follow policies before interacting
with him while he was on observation status. Dkt. No. 205 at 1. The plaintiff
states that it appears that the court may not have had this vital information
because it did not receive all 800 pages of the exhibits he submitted. Id. The
plaintiff also states that if the court had received the entire file he sent, it
would have been aware of his mental incapacity and that the nursing staff he
saw after the incident were mental health staff conducting a wellness check on
him because he had recently attempted suicide. Id. at 2. The court had at least
about 600 pages of exhibits the plaintiff filed. Dkt. Nos. 189-1, 189-2, 189-3,
189-4. Moreover, the court had information about the plaintiff being on suicide
watch and that corrections staff check on inmates every fifteen minutes when
they are on suicide watch. Dkt. No. 201 at 4-5. Even if the court did not receive
all the documents the plaintiff submitted, it had many documents regarding
the concerns he has raised.
Next, the plaintiff states that former defendant Marlon Hannah and the
C.E.R.T. violated jail policy by approaching him without contacting mental
health staff for direction, because policy did not allow them to interact with
him without a mental health staff member present. Id. The plaintiff challenges
the dismissal of Marlon Hannah at summary judgment; he contends that
Marlon Hannah showed deliberate indifference when applying the restraints
contrary to jail policy by making contact with a mentally challenged pretrial
detainee without the permission or support of the mental health staff and
failing to request medical attention or intervene when the other defendants
were choking him. Id. at 2. The plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court
erred in dismissing defendant Hannah from the case because whether Hannah
violated jail policy has no bearing on the plaintiff’s constitutional claims. See
Self v. Bergh, 835 F. App’x 873, 875 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Pulera v. Sarzant,
966 F.3d 540, 551 (7th Cir. 2020)).
Next, the plaintiff contends that court erred in denying his motion for
default. Dkt. No. 205 at 3. He states that the defendants did not file a
“definitive answer” to his complaint and that the defendants’ electronic
signatures on their declarations are not authentic. Id. The court already has
addressed these issues, dkt. no. 201 at 28-29; the plaintiff’s motion rehashes
his previous arguments.
“Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment only if the
petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly discovered
evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing
Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 511-12 (7th Cir. 2007)). Whether to
grant a motion to amend judgment “is entrusted to the sound judgment of the
district court.” In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996). The plaintiff’s
motion does not present any newly-discovered evidence and he has not shown
that the court’s order contains a manifest error of law. The court will deny his
motion for reconsideration.
Next, the plaintiff has filed a motion to compel. Dkt. No. 217. He says
that he sought original copies of declarations filed by the defendants in support
of their summary judgment motion because the declarations they filed were not
authentic. Id. at 1. The court already has explained that the declarations the
defendants submitted comply with the court’s electronic filing procedures. Dkt.
No. 201 at 28-29. The court will deny the plaintiffs motion to compel.
The court DENIES the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No.
205.
The court DENIES the plaintiff's motion to compel. Dkt. No. 217.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 26th day of July, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
Chief United States District Judge