Summary
This United States District Court order addresses a pro se plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and proposed amended complaint in a civil rights action alleging excessive force and denial of medical treatment by Milwaukee police officers. The court denies the motion for reconsideration, finding no manifest error or newly discovered evidence, and screens the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. After applying the plausibility standard, the court allows the plaintiff to proceed on Fourth Amendment excessive force and failure-to-intervene claims against several officers, as well as a Fourteenth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care against two others. The order directs the clerk to reinstate and add defendants and instructs the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the operative complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration should be granted.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a subpoena for body‑camera footage.
- Whether the amended complaint states viable claims under the Fourth Amendment for excessive force, failure‑to‑intervene, and under the Fourteenth Amendment for denial of medical treatment.
Holdings
- The motion is denied because the plaintiff offered no manifest error of law or fact and no newly discovered evidence.
- The request for a court‑issued subpoena is denied; the plaintiff must obtain a blank subpoena form and bear the costs.
- The amended complaint sufficiently states a Fourth Amendment excessive‑force claim against Officers Weiland, Madrigal, Wright, and Gonzales.
- The complaint states a viable Fourth Amendment failure‑to‑intervene claim against Officer Ulatowski.
- The complaint sufficiently states a claim that the officers denied proper medical attention, satisfying a Fourteenth Amendment claim.
Key quotations
“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function. They allow the court to correct manifest errors of law or fact or the plaintiff to present newly discovered evidence that was not available before the court ruled.” (at 1)
“A party may seek to compel another party to provide electronically stored information (like body camera footage) by serving that person with a subpoena. The requesting party must pay the associated costs—even if the party is indigent.” (at 2)
“The plaintiff may proceed on a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force against Officers Weiland, Madrigal, Wright and Gonzales.” (at 3)
Factual background
On March 19, 2023, plaintiff Steven Bailey was allegedly assaulted by Officer Michael Weiland and other Milwaukee police officers, who used excessive force, failed to intervene, and denied him medical treatment, leading to injuries.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint; the court screened it, dismissed all but a Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Weiland. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and to subpoena body‑camera footage; both were denied. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which the court screened and allowed to proceed on several Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, reinstating certain defendants.