Brown v. Chybowski
2:14-cv-01066
E.D. Wis.Jan 4, 2016Background
- Christopher Brown, a pro se, in forma pauperis detainee, sued dentist Dr. Brian Chybowski under the Eighth Amendment for dental care received at the Milwaukee County Jail.
- The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department was previously dismissed for failure to state a claim; Brown moved for reconsideration, arguing he could have pleaded more fully with access to medical/dental records.
- Brown filed a pro se motion for summary judgment and the defendant filed a separate motion for summary judgment; both motions and related briefs are before the court.
- The court found Brown’s summary-judgment filing noncompliant with local rules and lacking legal argument or admissible evidentiary support for judgment as a matter of law.
- The defendant’s summary-judgment motion was denied without prejudice because it failed to include the required pro se notice under Civil L.R. 56(a); defendant may refile with proper notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration of dismissal of Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department | Brown: could have pleaded a Monell/policy claim if produced medical/dental records earlier; pro se filings should get leniency | County/defendant: dismissal proper; Sheriff’s Department not a governmental entity and no policy claim pleaded | Denied — no manifest error; Sheriff’s Department not a proper §1983 defendant and no Monell policy claim alleged |
| Brown's motion for summary judgment | Brown: facts in his complaint establish liability and he reiterated alleged deficiencies in care | Chybowski: disputes facts and did not concede liability; summary judgment requires legal argument and evidence | Denied — Brown’s motion failed Local Rule 56 requirements, lacked legal authority and admissible evidence showing entitlement to judgment |
| Chybowski's motion for summary judgment (procedural adequacy) | Brown: opposed motion and filed objections to proposed facts; entitled to required pro se notice before R.56 motion proceeds | Chybowski: filed motion but omitted required pro se notice under Civil L.R. 56(a) | Denied without prejudice — defendant must refile with the mandatory pro se notice; supporting documents need not be refiled |
| Opportunity to amend response after proper notice | Brown: requested leave to supplement if given proper notice | Chybowski: no direct dispute — court must provide procedural protections | Granted — Brown may amend his opposition within 30 days after receiving the corrected motion; defendant may then reply per local rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246 (7th Cir. 1987) (standard for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) is to correct manifest errors or present newly discovered evidence)
- Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (discussing standards for motions to reconsider; cited in recon motion standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (defines "genuine" issue of material fact for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment enters when nonmoving party fails to prove an essential element)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under §1983 requires an official policy or custom)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (employer liability under §1983 not based on respondeat superior)
- O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (cited regarding summary judgment standards)