The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
TIMOTHY LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 24-cv-339-pp
CO OFFICER
and NURSING STAFF,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE
DEFENDANTS (DKT. NO. 19) AND DIRECTING COUNSEL FOR SHERIFF
BALL TO IDENTIFY DOE DEFENDANTS
______________________________________________________________________________
On July 23, 2024, the court screened the plaintiff’s complaint and
allowed him to proceed on a medical care claim against the defendant male
nurse (sued as Nursing Staff Second Shift) who allegedly did not provide the
plaintiff with medical attention for his infected finger on February 12 and 13,
2024. Dkt. No. 14 at 7. The court also allowed the plaintiff to proceed on an
excessive force claim against defendant CO officer who allegedly hit him and
pushed him into his cell on February 12, 2024. Id. at 7-8. The court added
Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita R. Ball as a defendant for the limited purpose
of helping the plaintiff identify the name of the defendants. Id. at 8. The court
explained that after Sheriff Ball’s attorney filed an appearance in this case, the
plaintiff could serve discovery upon Sheriff Ball (by mailing it to her attorney at
the address in his notice of appearance) to get information that would help him
identify the names of the defendants. Id.
The plaintiff has filed a letter that has been docketed as a motion to
substitute defendants. Dkt. No. 19. The letter is very difficult to read. As far as
the court can tell, the letter says that an officer helped the plaintiff find out
that a third shift nurse named Jeff was the one who took care of the plaintiff
and sent him to the hospital the night he was injured. Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff
says that “he” “will be able to give [the court] the names;” it is not clear whether
“he” is the officer who helped the plaintiff or the nurse named Jeff. Id. at 1. The
plaintiff also says something about whether the cameras were working in the
jail; the court cannot determine whether he says the cameras were working or
that they were not working. Id.
It is not clear whether the plaintiff wants to name Nurse Jeff as a
defendant or whether he believes that Nurse Jeff can identify the officer and
second shift nurse whom the plaintiff has sued. The court will deny as moot
the “motion to substitute defendants.”
The plaintiff does not say whether he contacted Sheriff Ball’s attorney to
ask Sheriff Ball the names of the Doe defendants, as the court previously
directed him to do. But it appears that the plaintiff has tried to identify the
names of the Doe defendants and he previously filed a letter stating that he
was having difficulties identifying them. Dkt. No. 17. At this stage, the court
will ask that counsel for Sheriff Ball identify the Doe defendants based on the
information in the complaint, screening order and the plaintiff’s November 15,
2024 letter. See Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th
Cir. 1996).
The court DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiffs motion to substitute
defendants. Dkt. No. 19.
The court ORDERS that counsel for Sheriff Ball must identify the Doe
defendants or file a letter explaining why he cannot do so by the end of the day
on December 27, 2024.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 2nd day of December, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
Chief United States District Judge