Johnson, DeShawn v. Snodgrass, Joseph

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DESHAWN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH SNODGRASS,
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-499-amb
Plaintiff DeShawn Johnson, a state prisoner representing himself, alleges that defendant
Joseph Snodgrass, a former correctional officer, punched him in the face for no reason when
plaintiff was housed at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. 	After discovery opened,
plaintiff filed motions to compel document production, for sanctions, for counsel, and to
extend all case deadlines or to stay this case. Dkts. 37–42, 46–49, & 51.
The court held a telephonic hearing on these motions on April 1, 2026.1 	Plaintiff
represented himself and defendant was represented by Assistant Attorney General Frank
Remington. This order memorializes the court’s rulings:
• 	The court confirmed that plaintiff has received replacement copies of the exhibits filed
at Dkt. 43 in response to his previously granted request at Dkt. 54. See Dkt. 56.
• 	Plaintiff seeks additional access to restricted DAI Policy #306.07.02: Principles of
Subject Control as well as video evidence. Dkt. 39. He alleges that he was told by the
litigation coordinator at his institution that he could only review these items once. The
court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS defense counsel to facilitate plaintiff’s further
review of these materials by April 22, 2026. 	As the court noted, defendant has
produced these materials for inspection per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Having reviewed these materials once before, plaintiff should be able to target his
subsequent review and must make best efforts to use his time well. As discussed, this
1 Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, Dkt. 41, is DENIED as moot.
Case: 3:25-cv-00499-amb Document #: 57 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 1 of 4

2
case involves a discrete event between two people, so discovery is not very voluminous.
The court will consider plaintiff’s request for further review of these materials if
necessary to prepare a response to a summary judgment motion.
• 	Plaintiff seeks clarification regarding whether his allegation of assault against defendant
was investigated internally and the production of any materials generated by an
investigation. Dkt. 37. The motion is GRANTED. Defense counsel is ORDERED to
confirm by April 22, 2026 whether any internal investigation was conducted and to
produce any responsive materials, including from any investigation conducted by the
warden and from defendant’s personnel file. To that end, defense counsel is ORDERED
to personally review defendant’s personnel file and to identify and produce any
information specific to plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on
defendant’s alleged attempt to conceal information about any alleged investigation,
Dkt. 38, is DENIED.
• 	Plaintiff moves for sanctions because defendant did not admit that plaintiff specifically
named defendant in an inmate complaint as the person who allegedly punched him.
Dkt. 40. 	The motion is DENIED. 	The complaint speaks for itself, and plaintiff can
seek to read it to the jury and testify to its preparation. At this stage in the litigation,
the court sees no value in having defendant admit or deny that plaintiff specifically
names him in the inmate complaint.
• 	Plaintiff moves for sanctions because he has been refused access to a flash drive
containing legal materials relevant to this case. Dkt. 41. Plaintiff also notes that despite
defense counsel reporting that plaintiff received access to his other legal materials on
January 27, 2026, he did not receive full access to these materials until the following
day. The motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has not shown prejudice due to any delay. As
for the flash drive, plaintiff confirmed on the call that he now has access to it, but
asserted that certain files on the flash drive were missing, including to-be-signed witness
affidavits. There is no evidence at this time that any files were purposely destroyed or
deleted. To the extent plaintiff believes otherwise, remedies used to combat spoliation
of evidence include pretrial discovery sanctions and an “adverse inference” at trial,
which permits the trier of fact to draw an inference that the missing evidence would
have been unfavorable to the party that failed to preserve it. 	Plaintiff may raise the
issue at summary judgment or trial, but he must keep in mind that to prevail on such a
claim, he will have to show that the files were on the flash drive and meet the high bar
of showing that defendants destroyed the evidence on purpose to hide adverse
information. See Norman-Nunnery v. Madison Area Tech. Coll., 625 F.3d 422, 428 (7th
Cir. 2010) (“The crucial element in a spoliation claim is not the fact that the [evidence
Case: 3:25-cv-00499-amb Document #: 57 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 2 of 4

3
was] 	destroyed 	but 	that 	[it 	was] 	destroyed 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	hiding 	adverse
information.”).
• 	Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, Dkt. 42, sanctions, Dkts. 46 & 47, and an extension or
stay of case deadlines, Dkts. 48, 49 & 51. 	The motions are DENIED. 	In support,
plaintiff notes that there was a delay in receiving his legal materials when he transferred
institutions and that defendant has repeatedly sent discovery responses late and to the
wrong institution, creating further delay. Plaintiff has now received his legal materials,
minus the aforementioned files that he believes are missing from his flash drive, and
defense counsel assured the court that he had plaintiff’s current address. The delayed
receipt of mail and legal materials was unfortunate, but the issue otherwise appears to
be resolved, and the court has built time into the case schedule to account for such
delays. Plaintiff has not been unfairly prejudiced either. Summary judgment motions
are not due for nearly three months, and trial is not for ten months, so there is still
plenty of time for the parties to continue working through the discovery process and to
prepare for these next phases of this straightforward assault case.
• 	Plaintiff renews his request for the court’s assistance with the recruitment of counsel.
Dkt. 41. 	The motion is DENIED without prejudice. 	Although he meets the
requirement of being unable to afford counsel on his own, plaintiff admits that he still
has not attempted to find a lawyer himself. See Dkt. 25 (denying plaintiff’s request for
counsel and noting that he has not met the requirement of making reasonable efforts
to locate a lawyer on his own). 	His motion can be denied on that ground alone.
Regardless, the court remains convinced that plaintiff can litigate this case on his own.
Indeed, his filings to date and his interactions with the court at the preliminary pretrial
conference and the hearing today show that plaintiff understands his case and is better
prepared and more capable than most self-represented litigants. Plaintiff argues that a
lawyer would have unlimited access to the relevant DAI policies and video footage, and
thus be on equal footing with defendant in this respect. 	The court is aware of the
limitations on self-represented, incarcerated litigants and takes these limitations into
account when setting the case schedule and considering extensions, among other ways.
But such limitations are common to all incarcerated litigants and whether an attorney
would be more helpful is not the standard. Plaintiff may renew this motion if this case
proceeds to trial, but at this stage, the court sees no basis to help recruit pro bono
counsel to represent him unless his circumstances drastically change.
SO ORDERED.
Case: 3:25-cv-00499-amb Document #: 57 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Entered April 1, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00499-amb Document #: 57 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 4 of 4