Hokamp v. Miller
| Decision Date | 09 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-1125-JPS |
| Parties | PAMELA J. HOKAMP, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF MATTHEW MILLER, DEPUTY TERI WEGNER, DEPUTY TOM KLEMKE, DEPUTY DANIEL HEINRICH, DEPUTY ERIC HEINE, DEPUTY SCOTT YAMBOR, DEPUTY MATT KANTERS, NURSE AMANDA LENZ, and NURSE SARAH LUEBKE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
J. P. Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff Pamela J. Hokamp (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the (now retired) Chief of Police of the Town of Lake Mills Police Department, Chief Matthew Miller (“Miller), as well as against several Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Deputies and Jefferson County Jail employees, including Deputy Teri Wegner (“Wegner”), Deputy Tom Klemke (“Klemke”), Deputy Daniel Heinrich (“Heinrich”), Deputy Eric Heine (“Heine”), Deputy Scott Yambor (“Yambor”), Deputy Matt Kanters (“Kanters”), Nurse Amanda Lenz (“Lenz”),[[1]]and Nurse Sarah Luebke (“Luebke”) (the “County Defendants” and together with Miller “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph screened Plaintiff's complaint and determined that it pleaded claims for false arrest, excessive force, and denial of medical treatment after incidents that occurred on July 22, 2019.[2] ECF No. 5. The case was later assigned to this branch of the Court.
On October 11, 2022, in accordance with the Court's trial scheduling order, Miller and the County Defendants, respectively, filed motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 32, 38. Also in accordance with the Local Rules and the Court's trial scheduling order, the parties submitted a stipulated, agreed-upon statement of undisputed, material facts, ECF No. 36, and Miller submitted an additional supplemental set of ostensibly disputed facts, ECF No. 35. On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed her own motion for summary judgment as well as a response to the stipulated statement of undisputed, material facts. ECF Nos. 41, 42.
On October 17, 2022,[3] Plaintiff filed a compendium of exhibits consisting of: photographs of abrasions on her face, abdomen, and toe; treatment records as to her toe and shoulder; copies of Jefferson County Sheriff's Office policies and procedures; printouts of legal argument; and a statement from her sister. ECF No. 46. Miller and the County Defendants filed opposition briefs to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 53, 55, and in reply to her response to the stipulated statement of undisputed, material facts, ECF No. 54. Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief to either Miller's or the County Defendants' motion for summary judgment, nor did she file a reply brief in support of her motion. Her time to do so has lapsed. Civ. L.R. 56(b)(2), (3).[4] Separately, on December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash Defendants' second notice of deposition. ECF No. 62.
The Court has reviewed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and will grant Miller's and the County Defendants' motions, ECF Nos. 32, 38, and deny Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 41. Consequently, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to quash, ECF No. 62, as moot.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 916 (7th Cir. 2016).
A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit” under the applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute of fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The court construes all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Inc., 815 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 2016). “The court must not weigh the evidence presented or determine credibility of witnesses; the Seventh Circuit instructs ‘that [the court] leave[s] those tasks to factfinders.'” H-D U.S.A., LLC v. SunFrog, LLC, 311 F.Supp.3d 1000, 1010 (E.D. Wis. 2018) (quoting Berry v. Chi. Transit Auth., 618 F.3d 688, 691 (7th Cir. 2010)). “[T]he non-movant need not match the movant witness for witness, nor persuade the court that her case is convincing, she need only come forward with appropriate evidence demonstrating that there is a pending dispute of material fact.” Waldridge v. Am. Hoeschst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 921 (7th Cir. 1994).
The parties submitted a stipulated, agreed-upon statement of facts, which were the product of an in-person meet-and-confer that took place on September 8, 2022. ECF No. 36. The Court adopts those stipulated facts that are material with minor, non-substantive edits, including omitting internal citations for brevity. The parties' meet-and-confer notwithstanding, Plaintiff filed a response with the Court, ECF No. 42, to which Defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 54, as to the stipulated, agreed-upon statement of facts. The Court will note Plaintiff's factual disagreements accordingly, with citations thereto.
Where the Court supplements the parties' proffered facts with occurrences from the various video footage exhibits, which are described further below, it also includes citations thereto.[5] Finally, Miller submitted a supplemental statement of facts, ECF No. 35; however, apart from two facts, which the Court notes herein, the Court finds Miller's submission repetitive of facts evident from the video footage or otherwise set forth in the parties' stipulated statement of facts.
3.1 Relevant Facts
On February 28, 2019, the City of Wisconsin Rapids issued Plaintiff Wisconsin Rapids Citation No. 3N80BJ1GGN and Wisconsin Rapids Citation No. 3N80BJ1GGM for “Disorderly Conduct” and “Resisting an Officer” in violation of Wisconsin Rapids' municipal code. On July 16, 2019, the Wisconsin Rapids Police Department entered two warrants (both embodied in Civil Process Warrant No. 3N80BJ1GGN) for Plaintiff's arrest for her failure to pay the citations.
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff called the Lake Mills Police Department to her Lake Mills home[6] regarding an alleged violation of a restraining order against a non-party. Miller responded to the call, spoke with Plaintiff, and then returned to his squad car, where he ran Plaintiff's information and discovered the warrants, prompting him to call for back-up from Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies.
The following facts (Plaintiff's arrest, transport, and initial arrival at the Jefferson County Jail (the “Jail”)) are all captured on video. The parties submitted footage from Plaintiff's doorbell camera, Klemke's body-worn camera, Heinrich's body-worn camera, the squad car camera, and the Jail camera. ECF No. 37-1. The parties agree that the videos accurately portray the visual and audio of the events.
After the deputies arrived at Plaintiff's residence at 10:32 A.M., Miller returned to Plaintiff's door and explained to Plaintiff that she had two warrants issued for her arrest from Wisconsin Rapids related to her disorderly conduct and resisting/obstructing and that the officers needed to take her to the Jail. Plaintiff contends that she never received a copy of the underlying citations, that she was unaware of the warrants, and that Miller did not show her the warrants. ECF No. 42. With Miller on her doorstep, Plaintiff immediately questioned the arrest warrants, said that she would not go to the Jail, and said that she would have to talk to her attorney and her sister. Plaintiff also informed Miller that she had cognitive impairments. ECF No. 37, Ex. 4 at 0:47, doorbell camera footage. All the while, Plaintiff kept her hand on the front door handle, and then attempted to open the door to go into her home. ECF No. 37, Exs. 4-5, doorbell camera footage. As Plaintiff began to open the door, Miller grabbed her arm, pulled her hand off the door handle, and told her that she was not allowed to enter the home because she was under arrest per the arrest warrants. Id. Heinrich also secured Plaintiff's other arm and either Miller, Heinrich, or both, told Plaintiff not to resist multiple times.
Plaintiff yelled at the officers to get off of her, and commenced swearing and cursing at the officers, while repeating the phrases, “No,” “I am not going anywhere,” “Why do they have me,” “I don't care,” “Knock it off,” and “Son of a bitch.” ECF No. 37-1, Ex. 9, Klemke body-worn camera footage, at 0:53-1:20. While making these statements, Plaintiff lowered her body to a sitting-type position on her front porch/stoop and raised her feet off the ground. Id. According to Miller, Plaintiff used her weight to anchor herself in this position and support her resistance. ECF No. 35 at 2. During these events, Klemke pulled out Heinrich's taser from Heinrich's duty belt and told Plaintiff three separate times that the taser would be used. Plaintiff continued to exhibit the same physical conduct, and responded, “I don't care.” ECF No. 37-1, Ex. 9, Klemke body-worn camera footage, at 1:04-1:12. Klemke then announced, “Taser, Taser, Taser,” and deployed the taser on Plaintiff. Plaintiff pulled the taser out from her stomach area, and continued to yell and curse at the officers, including telling them to “knock it off,” all while refusing to move from the sitting position on her front porch/stoop. Id. at 1:21-1:44. Plaintiff also swatted at the officers with her left hand, while yelling that she recently injured and had surgery on her left shoulder. Id. Plaintiff contends that she was tased twice, both on Miller's command to Klemke. ECF No. 46 at 2.
Miller and Heinrich eventually moved Plaintiff from the front...
To continue reading
Request your trial