Bruesch v. Flanagan et al

Filing 70

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. finding as moot 64 Motion Production of Documents; finding as moot 67 Motion to Compel. (BG) Distributed on 4/29/2013 (rs).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Nicholas Dodge Bruesch,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Todd Flanagan, Sean Conway, Brandon
Gumke, Jean Sullivan, and Nathan
Erickson,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case No. 1:12-cv-083

Before the court are Motions for Release of Documents filed by the plaintiff, Nicholas Dodge
Bruesch (“Bruesch”), March 26 and April 16, 2013, respectively. For the reasons set forth below,
these motions are deemed moot.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was incarcerated at the North Dakota State Penitentiary (“NDSP”) at the time he

was initiated this action. However, on April 2, 2013, he was transferred to the James River
Correctional Center (“JRCC.”)
On March 26, 2013, Bruesch filed what the court construes as a Motion for Release of
Documents, averring, inter alia, that NDSP staff has denied him access to his legal materials.1 On
April 8, 2013, defendants filed a response in opposition to Bruesch’s motion. They maintained that
restrictions on Bruesch’s ability to access legals materials were a measured, justified response to

1

In addition to complaining about his inability to access legal materials, Bruesch refers to defendants
responses/objections to a number of his discovery requests. As access to legal materials is the primary focus of
Bruesch’s motion and Bruesch has not explicitly requested any relief with respect to defendants discovery responses,
the undersigned concludes that the issue of discovery responses is not properly before the court and therefore need
not be addressed.

1

serious security issues.
On April 10, 2013, Bruesch filed a document captioned “Affidavit” wherein he again
asserted that he had been denied access legal materials. On April 16, 2013, he filed what the court
construes as a Second Motion for Release of Documents, averring that JRCC staff has continued to
deny him access to his legal materials.
On April 23, 2013, defendants file a supplement to its response in opposition to Bruesch’s
initial Motion for Release of Documents. Therein they advised:
Bruesch was transferred to the JRCC on April 2, 2013. As part of his transfer,
Bruesch’s property was inventoried by NDSP staff. Some, but not all, of Bruesch’s
property was transferred to JRCC. Bruesch’s property not transferred to JRCC was
sent to the NDSP property officer. The NDSP property officer has located Bruesch’s
legal documents and will send them to the JRCC with the Tuesday, April 23, 2013
transport. Due to sanctions for his behavior, Bruesch has received some, but not all,
of his property sent to the JRCC. Based on his behavior at this time, Bruesch will
receive his legal work when it arrives at the JRCC.
(Docket No. 69).
Based upon defendants’ supplemental response, it appears that Bruesch has been reunited
with his legal materials. Consequently, his Motions for Production of Documents (Docket Nos. 64
and 67) are deemed MOOT. Bruesch’s deadline for filing a response to defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment shall be extended until June 1, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2013.

/s Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2