District IV
February 26, 2013
To:
Hon. C. William Foust
Circuit Court Judge
215 South Hamilton, Br 14, Rm 7109
Madison, WI 53703
Carlo Esqueda
Clerk of Circuit Court
Room 1000
215 South Hamilton
Madison, WI 53703
Abigail Potts
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707
Dept. of Justice, Civil Litigation Unit
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Cory Hewitt 191547
Stanley Corr. Inst.
100 Corrections Drive
Stanley, WI 54768
Stanley Correctional Institution
100 Corrections Dr.
Stanley, WI 54768-6500
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cory Hewitt v. Susan Nygren (L.C. # 2010CV5613) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Lundsten, P.J., Sherman and Blanchard, JJ.
Cory Hewitt appeals the circuit court’s order granting
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at
conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See
Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1] We summarily affirm.
Hewitt, an inmate in the Wisconsin prison system,
filed a civil action against twelve state employees, seeking damages for
injuries he alleged he suffered as a result of the defendants’ negligence. Specifically, Hewitt alleged that he contracted
an illness as a result of being improperly placed in a cell with an infected
inmate. The defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment, and the circuit court granted the motion. Hewitt now appeals.
Hewitt’s brief contains numerous complaints about the
circuit court proceedings in this matter.
The brief fails, however, to develop coherent arguments that apply
relevant legal authority to the facts of record, and instead relies largely on
conclusory assertions. “A party must do
more than simply toss a bunch of concepts into the air with the hope that
either the trial court or the opposing party will arrange them into viable and
fact-supported legal theories.” State
v. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 337, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999). Consequently, this court need not consider
arguments that either are unsupported by adequate factual and legal citations
or are otherwise undeveloped. See Dieck v. Unified Sch. Dist. of Antigo,
157 Wis. 2d 134, 148 n.9, 458 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1990) (unsupported factual
assertions); State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct.
App. 1992) (undeveloped legal arguments). While we make some allowances for the failings
of parties who, as here, are not represented by counsel, “[w]e cannot serve as
both advocate and judge,” Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 647, and will
not scour the record to develop viable, fact-supported legal theories on the
appellant’s behalf, Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d at 337. Here, Hewitt has failed to develop his
arguments legally or to support them factually.
Therefore, we affirm the circuit court on that basis.
IT IS ORDERED that the order is summarily affirmed under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals