Opinion
20-cv-50-jdp
06-04-2021
BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR., a.k.a. BRITTNEY HARDAWAY BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. DAVID MAHONEY, TOUA VUE, BEN JENNINGS, MARTIN KNOLL, JACOB ZILLI, DERRICK WALKER, TIM ALGIERS, MATT EARLL DRITTAN LAZAMI, FRANK SMILGIS, BERNARD BAKER, and JOHN KLEIN, Defendants.[1]
ORDER
JAMES D. PETERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Brandon D. Bradley, Sr., also known as Brittney Bradley, contends that she was mistreated by defendant employees of the Dane County Sheriff's Office after her kidney was surgically removed while she was incarcerated at the Dane County jail. Bradley has filed three motions: (1) a motion to compel defendants to respond to her discovery requests, Dkt. 58; (2) a motion to sanction defendants for their failure to respond to the same discovery requests, Dkt. 62; and (3) a motion “to add new evidence into exhibit, ” Dkt. 70.
Bradley filed identical copies of all three motions in another lawsuit against employees of the Dane County Sheriff's Office. Bradley v. Van Norm, 20-cv-49-jdp (W.D. Wis.). I denied the first two motions in in the '49 case because they were entirely unsupported. Id., Dkt. 77. I will deny the first two motions in this case for the same reasons stated in that order. I denied the third motion in the '49 case because Bradley didn't identify what evidence she wished to submit or identify what motion the evidence was related to. Id., Dkt. 78. Bradley's third motion in this case suffers from the same flaws, so I will deny it as well.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion of plaintiff Brandon D. Bradley, Sr., a.k.a. Brittney Hardaway Bradley, to compel discovery, Dkt. 58, is DENIED.
2. Bradley's motion for sanctions, Dkt. 62, is DENIED.
3. Bradley's motion to add new evidence into exhibit, Dkt. 70, is DENIED. Entered June 4, 2021.