govinfo:USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00607-4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN 
  
 
TYLER L. MILTON, 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
SHANE HINTON, 
 
Defendant. 
ORDER 
 
24-cv-607-jdp 
 
 
Plaintiff Tyler L. Milton, proceeding withou t counsel, alleges th at defendant Shane 
Hinton failed to stop him from harming himsel f by ingesting pieces of his metal eyeglasses 
frame. Milton brings a claim under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 
The case is scheduled for trial on July 6, 2026, wi th a pretrial conference to be held by video 
on June 30, 2026. This order addresses Hinton’s motions in limine and objections to Milton’s 
witness and exhibit list s (Milton hasn’t filed his own moti ons in limine or responded to 
Hinton’s). Hinton’s counsel is directed to ensu re that Columbia Correctional Institution staff 
print a copy of this order for Milton’s immediate review. 
The court will follow with an order attachin g draft voir dire, jury instructions, and 
verdict form.  
ANALYSIS 
A. Defendant Hinton’s motions in limine (Dkt. 73) 
1. To allow evidence of Milton’s previous lawsuits or insincere threats 
Hinton states that he’ll testify that he didn ’t believe that Milton’s threats of self-harm 
were genuine because he was known to “use[] thre ats of self-harm to manipulate staff, create 
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 1 of 8
2 
 
work, and to engineer lawsuits.” Id. at 3. So Hinton wants to be allowed to cross-examine 
Milton on “the name, number, and claims of previous lawsuits he has filed” and testify himself 
about previous times that Milton insincerely threatened self-harm.  
Evidence that Milton has committed other wrongful acts is inadmissible if offered solely 
to prove his propensity for wrongdoing. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1). This evidence can 
be admissible for other purposes, including to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, 
plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Rule 404(b)(2). But it’s not 
enough that the other-acts evidence serves a permitted purpose. The other-acts evidence must 
be connected to that purpose though a propensity-free chain of reasoning. United States v. 
Gomez, 763 F.3d 845, 860 (7th Cir. 2014). Hinton appears to want to use this evidence to 
show that Milton’s propensity for insincerely threatening self-harm led him to believe that 
Milton was being insincere on the date in question. That may violate Gomez’s rule and Hinton 
doesn’t cite any authority allowing this type of evidence.  
An additional problem is that Hinton seek s to introduce this evidence in part by 
discussing the name, number, and claims in Milton’s previous lawsuits. But that evidence—on 
its face—doesn’t actually prove that Milton insi ncerely threatened self-harm. Nor is it clear 
how Hinton would have been aware of those lawsuits or the results of them during the events 
of this lawsuit. Hinton’s briefing on the matte r doesn’t persuade me to grant the motion, but 
I’ll allow him to discuss the issue further at the final pretrial conference.  
2. To exclude evidence of causation or future harm  
Hinton seeks to exclude evidence regarding causation of injury, permanence, future care 
and treatment, or future pain and suffering. I agree with Hinton that Milton himself does not 
have the knowledge or expertise to analyze medical records or to testify about whether Hinton’s 
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 2 of 8
3 
 
actions or inactions caused him specific injuries that will affect him in the future. So the motion 
is granted for the most part. But Milton may describe his own understanding of his health and 
his personal experiences during  and after the events in question, and he can describe any 
physical or mental symptoms he experienced. He may also cross-examine Hinton’s witnesses, 
if any, who testify about the cause of his pain or his future care. 
3. To exclude evidence of details of other inmates’ lawsuits against DOC 
officials 
Hinton seeks to exclude any reference to the details of other inmate lawsuits filed 
against the DOC. Hinton states that this motion is consistent with his first motion to allow 
information about Milton’s previo us lawsuits. Maybe so. I am in clined to grant this motion, 
but I’ll give Milton a chance to address it at the final pretrial conference.  
4. To exclude details of other legal proc eedings, personnel file, work history, 
and inmate grievances unrelated to this case 
Hinton seeks to exclude details of other legal proceedings, personnel files, work history, 
and inmate grievances unrelated to this case re garding himself or his witnesses. As with the 
previous motion in limine, although I’m inclined to grant this motion I’ll give Milton a chance 
to address it at the final pretrial conference.  
5. To allow cross-examination of Milton and his witnesses about criminal 
convictions  
Hinton intends to impeach Milton with his previous felony convictions pursuant to 
Fed. R. Evid. 609 and to do the same with Milt on’s witnesses. Milton doesn’t intend to call 
any non-DOC witnesses so I’ll limit the discussion to Milton himself. Hinton seeks to elicit the 
title, date, and disposition of his felony-level  offenses. Hinton doesn’t explain what those 
offenses are. This court’s long practice has been to exclude the details of prior non-dishonesty 
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 3 of 8
4 
 
convictions in prisoner civil rights cases be cause the details impugn the witness’s general 
character, making him seem dangerous,  unlawful, or unsavory to the jury. Wynn v. Adams , 
No. 23-cv-364-jdp, 2024 WL 4589485, at *1. I will allow Hinton to ask Milton whether he 
has been convicted of felonies and how many ti mes, keeping in mind Rule 609’s time limits 
regarding this type of evidence. At the final pretrial conference, Hinton must explain which of 
Milton’s convictions qualify under Rule 609.  
6. To exclude reference of who pays for a judgment 
Hinton seeks to exclude evidence or argume nt concerning his indemnification by the 
state. I will grant that motion.  
7. To exclude references to summary judgment opinion or other claims 
dismissed at summary judgment 
Hinton seeks to exclude reference to my  commentary on evidence in my summary 
judgment opinion and to exclud e references to Milton’s othe r claims, and in particular 
references to the medical care that he received following the incident.  
Hinton is correct that my summary judgment discussion is not evidence so I will grant 
that part of the motion. Milton may also not refer to the existence of his previously dismissed 
claims, nor may he refer to facts regarding those claims that are irrelevant to his claim against 
Hinton. I’m not convinced that all potential discussion of his medical care would be irrelevant 
to his claim against Hinton because the treatmen t that he received following his attempt at 
self-harm may be relevant to proving damages.  So Milton may present evidence about the 
treated he received. But whether particular sta ff adequately treated his medical needs is not 
relevant, so Milton may not present evidence or  argument aimed at showing that his medical 
needs were improperly treated.  
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 4 of 8
5 
 
B. Objections to Milton’s exhibits (Dkt. 78) 
Hinton objects to Milton’s exhibit list, Dkt. 69 at 4, because it doesn’t comply with the 
instructions in my trial preparation order, Dkt. 68. Milton didn’t use the court’s exhibit form, 
he doesn’t identify the docket number for prev iously filed exhibits, and he otherwise doesn’t 
include the exhibits themselves . I’ll overlook Milton’s failure to use the court’s form, and 
Hinton makes clear that he was able to locate ce rtain of the exhibits in the record, so missing 
citations to the docket aren’t prejudicial.  
That leaves Hinton’s specific objections. Hinton objects to 36 pages of psychological 
records regarding the day of the incident and couple of weeks following. Hinton is correct that 
discussion of Milton’s mental health after the incident is irrelevant  to the question whether 
Hinton consciously disregarded a risk to Milt on. And any notes regarding maladies unrelated 
to the incident at issue here are also irrelevant. I will exclude that irrelevant evidence. But notes 
regarding the emotional distress that Milton suffe red after the incident could be relevant to 
damages. So I will not exclude these records in their entirety.  
Hinton also objects to Milton’s listing of “[a]ll DOC-112 ‘observation of inmate’ logs” 
and “all prison medical records” from between March 7 (the date of the incident) and March 
25, 2024, and “[a]ll Aspirus Health Divine Savior  Hospital documents” from March 7 and 8, 
2024. Milton doesn’t provide any citation to these documents, and his own previously 
submitted exhibits (Dkt. 60-2 for the DOC-112 fo rms, Dkt. 60-3 for prison medical records, 
and Dkts. 60-4 and 60-5 for hospital records) don’t seem to encompass the entire timeframe 
that Milton states in his exhibit list. For now I’ll assume that these are the exhibits that Milton 
seeks to include. If Milton has more material th at he seeks to introduce, I’ll give him a short 
time to submit those materials to the court. I’ ll reserve a ruling on th ese sets of documents, 
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 5 of 8
6 
 
other than to note that much in these document s does seem relevant to explaining the events 
of the day of the incident and the injuries that he sustained. However, this case is not about 
whether Milton received adequate medical care so I will not allow him to introduce evidence 
in an attempt to show that he received substandard care.  
C. Objections to Milton’s witnesses (Dkt. 78) 
Milton seeks to call the following witnesses: (1) defendant Hinton; correctional officers 
(2) Jesseca Mayfield and (3) Rodney Klang; (4) Dr. Laura Sukowaty; (5) Nurse Erin Anderson; 
(6) prison therapist Chastity Drake; and pris on psychologists (7) Natasha Jones; (8) Marcelo 
Trinidad; and (9) Kelsey Stange. Dkt. 69, at 1–3. 
Hinton and Klang are already on Hinton’s “w ill call” list. Hinton doesn’t object to 
Milton calling Mayfield or Anderson, who are al ready on Hinton’s “may call” list. I will ask 
that as a courtesy, Hinton bring Mayfield and Anderson to trial. 
Hinton objects to Milton calling Dr. Sukowaty and mental-health professionals Drake, 
Jones, Trinidad, and Stange, noting that Milt on doesn’t explain what  these witnesses will 
testify to, and arguing that his mental health treatment is irrelevant to his claims.  
As I’ve already discussed regarding Hinton’s  motions in limine and Milton’s evidence, 
I don’t agree that all medical or mental health treatment records or testimony are irrelevant. If 
any of these witnesses have agreed to testify voluntary, I won’t exclude them without hearing 
from the parties at the final pretrial conference.  
But if any of these witnesses haven’t agreed to  testify voluntarily, Milton has failed to 
ask to subpoena any of them under the procedures discussed in the attachments to this court’s 
preliminary pretrial conference order. See attachments to Dkt. 15, at 33–36. Under those 
procedures, Milton was required to submit an affidavit stating that the witnesses have not 
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 6 of 8
7 
 
agreed to testify voluntarily, and that he is prepared to tender to the United States Marshal or 
other individual serving the su bpoena a check or money order made payable to the witness 
covering the required witness fees.1 If Milton does seek to subpoena any of these witnesses, he 
must follow the court’s procedur es immediately along with fili ng a motion for issuance of 
subpoenas. The longer Milton waits, the less li kely the Marshal will have time to serve the 
subpoenas. 
ORDER 
IT IS ORDERED that: 
1. The court rules on defendant’s motions in limine, Dkt. 73, as follows: 
a. A ruling on defendant’s motion to allow other-acts evidence is RESERVED. 
b. Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of evidence of causation or future 
harm is GRANTED in part.  
c. A ruling on defendant’s motion to exclude reference to other inmates’ 
lawsuits is RESERVED. 
d. A ruling on defendant’s motion to  exclude reference to other legal 
proceedings, personnel files, work hi story, and inmate grievances is 
RESERVED. 
e. Defendant’s motion to cross-examin e Milton and witnesses regarding 
convictions is GRANTED in part. 
f. Defendant’s motion to exclude refere nce to who pays for a judgment is 
GRANTED.   
 
1 For Milton’s reference, the witness rate is $40 per day for each witness. If the witnesses are 
traveling to Madison, then Milton must also be  able to pay mileage at the rate of $0.725 per 
mile. (Milton may be able to avoid paying mileage if he makes arrangements for the witnesses 
to testify by videoconference.) The court cannot waive these fees for an unrepresented litigant. 
Marozsan v. United States , 90 F.3d 1284, 1290 (7th Cir. 1996); McNeil v. Lowney , 831 F.2d 
1368, 1373 (7th Cir. 1987). 
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 7 of 8
8 
 
g. Defendant’s motion to exclude referenc e to Milton’s other claims and the 
court’s summary judgment opinion is GRANTED in part.  
2. The court rules on defendant’s objections to  plaintiff’s exhibit list, Dkt. 78, as 
follows: 
a. Defendant’s general objections to form are OVERRULED. 
b. Defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s psychological records is SUSTAINED in 
part.  
c. A ruling on defendant’s objections to  plaintiff’s remaining exhibits is 
RESERVED.  
3. Milton may have until June 25, 2026, to submit any additional documents that 
appear on his exhibit list.  
4. A ruling on defendant’s objections to plai ntiff’s proposed witnesses, Dkt. 78, is 
RESERVED. 
5. Defendant’s counsel is directed to ensure that CCI staff print a copy of this order 
for plaintiff’s immediate review. 
Entered June 18, 2026. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
      / s /  
      ________________________________________ 
      J A M E S  D .  P E T E R S O N  
      D i s t r i c t  J u d g e  
     
Case: 3:24-cv-00607-jdp     Document #: 80     Filed: 06/18/26     Page 8 of 8

Passage view · GavelSight