United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. NO.
67) AND SETTING DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff filed his complaint more than a year ago. Dkt. No.
1. He alleged, in part, that he was in danger because,
despite his telling prison officials about his desires to
hurt himself, the defendants had isolated him and were not
properly monitoring him to keep him safe. At the time, U.S.
District Court Judge Charles N. Clevert was presiding over
the case. Judge Clevert screened the plaintiff's
complaint, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
and allowed the plaintiff to proceed on certain claims.
See Dkt. No. 12. A couple of weeks later, Judge
Clevert allowed the plaintiff to proceed on additional claims
after partially granting the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. See Dkt. No. 14.
October 24, 2016, Judge Clevert partially granted the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and
scheduled a telephone conference for November 2, 2016. Dkt.
No. 31. During the conference, Judge Clevert ordered the
defendants' counsel to confer with prison administration
about the monitoring of plaintiff and about the availability
of an emergency call button. Dkt. No. 40. Judge Clevert
scheduled another hearing for the end of the month.
November 30, 2016, the parties updated Judge Clevert on the
status of the case; they informed him that plaintiff was
scheduled for a review of his segregation status, and that he
was set to be released from the institution in a little over
a month. Dkt. No. 46. The plaintiff acknowledged that he was
receiving his medication and visits from a psychologist.
Id. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss his lawsuit
without prejudice, with leave to reopen the case by January
10, 2017 if the defendants' did not satisfy certain
agreements between the parties. Id.
than a month later, Judge Clevert granted the plaintiff's
motion to reopen the case. Dkt. No. 50. The defendants did
not oppose the plaintiff's motion, but they indicated
that mediation might help resolve the parties'
disagreements. Id. Judge Clevert referred the case
to a magistrate judge for mediation. Id. The
clerk's office randomly referred the case to U.S.
Magistrate Judge William Duffin.
January 25, 2017, Judge Duffin returned the case to Judge
Clevert. Dkt. No. 53. He explained that the plaintiff had
been released from custody on January 17, 2017, and had not
made contact with his supervising agent. Id. Because
Judge Duffin had no means by which to contact the plaintiff
or proceed with the mediation, he returned the case to Judge
couple of weeks later, the plaintiff notified the court that
he was in the Fond du Lac County Jail. Dkt. No. 57. He filed
a separate letter indicating that he wanted to pursue the
case and proceed to mediation. Dkt. No. 56. Judge Clevert
again referred the case to Judge Duffin for mediation, and
recruited counsel to represent the plaintiff for that
purpose. Dkt. No. 58.
March 27, 2017, due to Judge Clevert's pending
retirement, the case was randomly reassigned to this court.
Dkt. No. 61. A short time later, Judge Duffin scheduled the
mediation for June 13, 2017. Dkt. No. 65.
2, 2017, the plaintiff filed another motion for preliminary
injunction. Dkt. No. 66. A week later, Judge Duffin issued an
order cancelling the mediation. Dkt. No. 68. The order stated
that the parties had agreed to cancel the mediation, and that
based on information the parties had provided to him, he
agreed that the mediation should not go forward. Judge Duffin
returned the case to this court for further proceedings.
Id. at 1.
Judge Clevert referred the case to mediation immediately
after he reopened it, he did not set new discovery or
dispositive motion deadlines. In addition, although the
parties agreed to cancel the mediation, neither party has
indicated to this court how the parties think the case should
proceed. In attempt to get the case moving, the court will
defendants have not responded to the plaintiff's June 2,
2017 motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 67. The
court will require the defendants to respond to the motion by
the end of the day on July 28, 2017. If the plaintiff wants
to file a reply brief in support of his motion, he may do so
by August 11, 2017.
court will require the parties to complete discovery by
October 13, 2017. That means that the parties must serve
their discovery requests on the opposing party at least
thirty days before the deadline, to allow the
opposing party sufficient time under the rules to respond by
the deadline. The court reminds the parties that they must
serve their discovery requests and responses on the opposing
parties (the plaintiff should mail his requests and responses
to the defendants' counsel), and not file them with the
court notes that the plaintiff is suing unidentified
defendants. The plaintiff should use discovery to identify
the real names of the Doe defendants. Once he knows their
real names, he should file a motion to substitute the real
names for the Doe placeholders. The plaintiff must identify
the Does' real names by September 15, 2017. If the
plaintiff fails to identify the Does' real names by the
deadline, the court may dismiss those defendants.
if the parties choose to file dispositive motions, the court
will require them to do so by October 20, 2017. A party
opposing a dispositive motion must file the opposition brief
by November 20, 2017. Reply ...