District IV
July 19, 2013
To:
Hon. Andrew P. Bissonnette
Circuit Court Judge
Justice Facility
210 West Center St.
Juneau, WI 53039
Lynn M. Hron
Clerk of Circuit Court
Dodge Co. Justice Facility
210 West Center Street
Juneau, WI 53039
Kevin C. Potter
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Francis X. Sullivan
Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Dept. of Justice, Civil Litigation Unit
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Mark Allen Walters 138767
Waupun Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 351
Waupun, WI 53963-0351
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Allen Walters v. Dentist/Doctor Mr. Schettle, DDS (L.C. # 2011CV287) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Lundsten, P.J., Blanchard and Kloppenburg, JJ.
Mark Walters appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint against a prison dentist. 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(1) (2011-12).[1] We affirm.
The circuit court regarded this as a dental malpractice case, and dismissed it because Walters did not have available an expert who would testify about the standard of care in what the court regarded as a dental malpractice case. Walters argues that the circuit court erred by not appointing counsel for him, by not letting him use his release account funds to obtain an expert witness with his family’s help, by not letting him subpoena an expert witness in Illinois, and by granting summary judgment to the defendant.
However, we are not able to see any coherent explanation of why the circuit court was legally required to grant Walters’ requests, or erred in dismissing the case on the ground that it did. 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,” State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 647, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992), and we will not scour the record to develop viable, fact-supported legal theories on the appellant’s behalf, State v. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 337, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999). Therefore, we affirm the dismissal.
Separately, we express appreciation for the effort made by counsel for the respondent to identify Walters’ arguments and explain why they lack merit. Respondents do not always make sufficient efforts to discern arguments in difficult pro se briefs.
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment appealed is summarily affirmed under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals