United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
TO SUBSTITUTE NAMES FOR DOE PLACEHOLDERS (DKT. NO. 60) AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RESET DISCOVERY AND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES (DKT. NO. 63)
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 23, 2016, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed
on deliberate indifference claims against unidentified
defendants. Dkt. No. 27. The court ordered the plaintiff to
use discovery to identify the real names of the defendants,
and instructed him to file a motion to substitute the real
names for the Doe placeholders once he learned their names.
23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion asking, in part, that
the court substitute Jesse Laning, Carol Al-Rahrawy, and
Nurse Westphal for defendant Jane Doe #1, and J. Bleder, E.
Marwitz, M. Moore, and J. Beahm for John Doe. Dkt. No. 60.
The plaintiff explained in his motion that all three nurses
were responsible for entering prescriptions during the time
he was waiting for someone to change his prescription for
migraines. The plaintiff also explains that a different
correctional officer made each of the denials for linens,
clothes, or adult diapers after he wet his bed. In light of
these explanations, the court will grant the plaintiff's
motion to substitute the names he provided for the Doe
same motion, the plaintiff asked the court to send him a copy
of his amended complaint. Dkt. No. 60 at 1. It is not clear
why the plaintiff needs the copy. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, the court does not provide parties with copies
free of charge. The court instructs parties to keep copies of
every document they file; if they fail to do so, they must
pay $0.10 per page to obtain a copy. The plaintiff indicates
that he is indigent, but nearly all prisoners (and many
others) who file complaints are indigent, so this is an
insufficient reason on its own for the court to provide a
free copy to the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff has failed
to provide a compelling reason as to why the court should
depart from its general policy of requiring payment for all
copies, the court will deny the plaintiff's request. The
plaintiff's amended complaint is seventeen pages long,
which means he needs to send the court $1.70 before the court
will send him a copy.
plaintiff also asks the court to require the defendants to
provide him with a copy of his medical documents on a
computer disc and to compel the defendants to provide him
with certain documents. Id. at 2-3. The court
already has addressed similar requests in its May 23, 2017
order. Dkt. No. 59. (The court entered the May 23 order the
day before the court received this current motion, so it is
likely that the plaintiff had not received or read the May 23
order before he mailed this motion.) As the court noted in
the May 23 order, the court will not require the defendants
to pay for the plaintiff's discovery costs when he has
access to the documents he wants through his institution. In
addition, the local rules require that before a party asks
the court to order the other side to turn over discovery,
that party first make his requests directly to opposing
counsel. The plaintiff should write a letter to opposing
counsel, stating clearly what he wants and why. The court
anticipates that the parties will be able to work out many of
their disputes this way, without court involvement.
the plaintiff indicates that if the defendants object to
anything he asks for, the court should appoint a lawyer to
represent him. The court repeatedly has denied the
plaintiff's request for an attorney. Dkt. Nos. 27, 48,
59. Nothing has changed since the plaintiff made those
requests; the court has no reason to reconsider its decision.
9, 2017, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to
reset the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in light
of the newly identified defendants. Dkt. No. 63. The court
will grant that motion. To allow the plaintiff sufficient
time to obtain discovery from the newly identified
defendants, the court will set a new discovery deadline of
September 29, 2017. If the parties want to
file dispositive motions, they must do so by October
court GRANTS the plaintiff's request to
substitute the defendants' real names for the Doe
placeholders. Dkt. No. 60. The court DENIES
the remaining requests in the plaintiff's motion. Dkt.
court ORDERS that the clerk of court shall
substitute Jesse Laning, Carol Al-Rahrawy, and Nurse Westphal
for defendant Jane Doe #1, and J. Bleder, E. Marwitz, M.
Moore, and J. Beahm for John Doe.
court ORDERS that, under an informal service
agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and
this court, today the court will electronically send copies
of the plaintiffs complaint and this order to the Wisconsin
Department of Justice for service on Jesse Laning, Carol
Al-Rahrawy, Nurse Westphal, J. Bleder, E. Marwitz, M. Moore,
and J. Beahm.
court also ORDERS that, under the informal
service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice
and this court, defendants Jesse Laning, Carol Al-Rahrawy,
Nurse Westphal, J. Bleder, E. Marwitz, M. Moore, and J. Beahm
shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint within
sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order.
the court GRANTS the defendants' motion
to reset the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, dkt.
no. 63, and EXTENDS the discovery deadline
to September 29, 2017 ...