United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
NICHOLAS J. STEINKE, Plaintiff,
BETH DITTMANN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER CORRECTING DOCKET, ORDERING SERVICE ON
DEFENDANT LISA ROST, DISMISSING DEFENDANT JOHN DOE CO, AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT.
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 26, 2018, the court ordered the parties to file
amended pleadings by April 30, 2018. Dkt. No. 29. On March
28, 2018, the plaintiff filed a one-page document,
identifying the individuals whom he had identified only as
John Does in the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 18). Dkt. No.
30. The clerk's office construed the March 28, 2018
document as a motion to amend the complaint, and docketed it
as the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Id.
plaintiff was not seeking to amend the complaint-his motion
did not add any new allegations or claims. He was trying to
do what the court told him he could do-substitute the real
names of the John and Jane Doe defendants once he discovered
who they were. Because the motion showed up on the docket as
a second amended complaint, however, all of the newly-named
defendants except Lisa Rost answered. Dkt. No. 34. At that
time, the clerk's office added each of the names the
plaintiff had listed in the motion to the docket as
defendants, except that of Lisa Rost. Id. So,
despite not having been served with the amended complaint
(dkt. no. 18, which is the operative complaint in the case),
all but one of the newly-named defendants have filed an
court will require the clerk's office to correct the
docket, to show that the plaintiff filed a motion to
substitute defendants, not a second amended
complaint. The court will order the clerk's office to
substitute Lisa Rost's name for that of WI DOC DCI John
Doe HSU staff; the failure to do so appears to have been an
oversight. The court will order service on defendant Rost,
and allow her to answer or otherwise respond.
court notes that along with his motion to substitute the real
names of the Doe defendants, the plaintiff included 328 pages
of exhibits. Dkt. No. 30-1. It is not entirely clear from the
plaintiff's one-page motion, but it appears that possibly
he expects that the court will go through these 328 pages of
documents and identify possible other defendants whom he has
not named. That is not the court's responsibility, and
the court will not review those documents. They are not
exhibits to his operative complaint (dkt. no. 18). If, at
some later date in the case, the plaintiff wishes to use
those documents as evidence-for example, as part of his
summary judgment response, if any-he may notify the court of
that at the appropriate time. For now, the court will take no
further action on those documents.
the deadline the court previously set for parties to file
dispositive motions was July 6, 2018. Dkt. No. 29. On June
25, 2018, the court received a motion from the defendants,
asking to extend that deadline. Dkt. No. 37. They explain
that there has been a delay in their ability to obtain
necessary medical documents from one of the plaintiff's
medical providers; they need to review those documents before
filing any dispositive motions. Id. at 2. They ask
for an additional thirty days to file dispositive motions.
Id. at 1. The court will grant that request.
on July 2, 2018, the court received a letter from counsel for
the defendants. Dkt. No. 38. Counsel had recently learned
from the plaintiff's father, via email, that the
plaintiff was due to be released from custody sometime in
July 2018. Id. Counsel had responded to the
plaintiff's father, advising him that the plaintiff would
need to notify the court of his change in address.
Id. The court needs a valid mailing address for the
plaintiff; without one, it cannot send him the documents he
needs. As of the date of this order, the court has not
received a change of address notification from the plaintiff.
The court contacted the plaintiff's state supervision
officer, who indicated that the plaintiff is currently
confined at the Kenosha County Detention Center. The court
will forward a copy of this order to the plaintiff there. The
court appreciates defense counsel's assistance in
bringing this to the court's attention.
court ORDERS the clerk's office to
correct docket no. 30 to indicate that the plaintiff named
the John Doe defendants.
court ORDERS the clerk's office to
substitute Lisa Rost for WI DOC DCI John Doe HSU Staff.
the informal service agreement between the Wisconsin
Department of Justice and this court, the court
ORDERS the clerk's office to
electronically send copies of the plaintiffs amended
complaint (dkt. no. 18) and this order to the Wisconsin
Department of Justice for service on Lisa Rost. The court
ORDERS Lisa Rost to file a responsive
pleading to the second amended complaint within sixty days of
receiving electronic notice of this order.
court DISMISSES “John Doe CO” as
court GRANTS the defendants' motion for
an extension of time to file dispositive motions. The court
ORDERS that any party wishing to file a
dispositive motion shall file it in time for the court to
receive it by the end of the day on August 9,
2018. As indicated in the scheduling order,