Tiedeman v. Weber et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Extend ; granting 24 Motion to be provided the addresses for the four unserved defendants; granting 27 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by US Magistrate Judge John E. Simko on 5/14/14. (DJP)

FILED

MAY 1 4 201~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

~~

SOUTHERN DIVISION

***************************************************
*
CIV. 13-4126
JESSE CLAUDE TIEDEMAN,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*

*

ORDER ON MOTIONS
vs.
*
*
DOUGLAS L. WEBER, Director of Prison
Docs. 24, 27, & 35.

*
Operations at South Dakota State Penitentiary;
*

TROY PONTO, Assoc. Warden;
*

CLIFTON FANTROY, Unit Manager;
*

JENNIE PETERSON, Unit Coordinator;
*

HEATHER VELD, Case Manager;
*

LINDA MILLER-HUNHOFF, Mailroom
*

Supervisor; KA YLA STEKELBERG,
*

Unit Coordinator; MIKE HOLMES,
*

License Plates Supervisor;
*

STEVE LINNIWEBER, Corrections Officer; and *

THOMAS LINNIWEBER, Corrections Officer,
*

*
Defendants.
*
*
****************************************************
Pending are Jesse Claude Tiedeman's (1) motion requiring the South Dakota State
Penitentiary to provide addresses of former employees (Doc. 24); (2) motion to amend complaint
(Doc. 27); and motion to extend time (Doc. 35).

BACKGROUND

1.

ADDRESSES OF FOUR UNSERVED DEFENDANTS.

On January 13, 2014, a letter was received from Tiedeman which is considered as amotion
to be furnished the addresses of four former employees upon whom Tiedeman wishes to serve a
summons. He forwarded ten USM 285 forms to the U.S. Marshal for service of process. Six were
served. Four were returned unserved because they no longer work at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary.

On March 25,2014, Tiedeman filed amotion which duplicates his January 13, 2014 request
to be provided the addresses ofthe four unserved defendants so they can be served (Doc. 44). The
defendants resist the motion (Doc. 45). The defendant's resist because the motion is untimely. In
the interim defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and the defendants were not aware of
attempts by Tiedeman to get a court order for the addresses ofthe remaining defendants. Defendants
suggest the motion for summary judgment could be decided without serving the four remaining
defendants because as a matter oflaw, contrary to Tiedeman's suggestion, there was not a conspiracy
to deprive Tiedeman of constitutional rights. Since there was no conspiracy, the four defendants
could not be a part of a conspiracy the defense argues. Defendants assert the need to protect the
confidentiality of the personal addresses. Defendants propose the addresses could be provided as
in Morris v. Barr, 2011 WL 3859711 at *2 (SD Cal), i.e. the last known addresses could be
furnished to either the court or to the United States Marshal in a confidential memorandum which
should be sealed so that it does not become a public record.

Tiedeman has not resisted the

suggestion and in his January 13, 2014, letter he himselfproposed keeping the addresses confidential
so that even he would not be advised of the addresses.

2.

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT.

On January 17,2014, Tiedeman filed a document captioned "Motion To Amend Complaint"
(Doc. 27). His motion to amend consists of a typed recitation of:
"42 USCA §§ 1985
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror ...
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges ...

18 USCA §§ 241, 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law ..

18 USCA § 285 Taking or using papers relating to claims ..."

The motion also includes one affidavit captioned "State of South Dakota, County of Minnehaha,"
a letter to Kayla (an employee at the South Dakota State Penitentiary), and a letter to Chief Deputy
Matthew W. Thelen (office of the Clerk of Court for the District of South Dakota).

2

3.

TO EXTEND TIME.

Tiedeman "moves the court to grant an extension oftime to deliver his response and rebuttal
to the defendant's answer to his complaint." (Doc. 35).

DISCUSSION

1.

SUMMARY OF TIEDEMAN'S CLAIMS.

Most of Tiedeman's discussion in documents he has filed relates to his claim that some of
his mail was not sent from the South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP). Some of this unsent mail
is described as legal mail, though it is not clear why it is legal mail except for one instance. One of
his letters was to secure information from the Minnehaha County Clerk ofCourt from his State Court
file so he could timely file a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1, P 6, ~ IV, Second Claim). Examples of
the letters he claims were not sent include a letter requesting money from a friend or acquaintance.
Another unsent letter was to a friend who was requested to reply to confirm that Tiedeman's mail
had been sent from the prison.
Another ofTiedeman's claims is that his property was taken. It appears documents Tiedeman
considers legal documents were taken from his cell when Tiedeman was assigned to solitary
confinement on two occasions. "Plaintiffhas no remedy ofany kind, is being and has been deprived
of his ability and right to prepare as well as present his legal claims to the court in an adequate,
meaningful and effective manner." (Doc. 11, p. 5, ~ 4).
Another ofTiedeman's claims is the defendants "sought to obstruct justice when they tried,
via force, intimidation and threat, to deter the Plaintiff from freely, fully and truthfully testifying on
a matter ofjustice." (Doc. I, p. 6, ~ IV, Third Claim).
Another ofhis apparent claims, unstated in the complaint but apparent from other documents
he has filed, is that he was unjustly fired from his job at the SDSP.
Defendants have filed a joint motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40). The summary
judgment motion has not been referred for a Report and Recommendation. The defense argues in
the summary judgment motion that Tiedeman himself acknowledged receiving the information he
requested from the Minnehaha County Clerk of Court in the letter Tiedeman claims was not mailed
by the SDSP. Furthermore, the defense asserts, there are other reasons why his letter could not have

3

reached the intended recipient besides having not been mailed by the SDSP (Doc. 41, p. 2). The
defense also asserts Tiedeman has not suffered an actual injury even ifit is assumed the SDSP failed
to send his mail (Doc. 41, p. 3).

2.

ADDRESSES OF FOUR UNSERVED DEFENDANTS.

The defense has suggested a method for protecting the security and confidentiality of the
unserved defendants. (Morrisv. Barr, 2011 WL3859711 at*2(SDCal). For the reasons described
in Morris, Tiedeman is entitled to assistance in serving the four unserved defendants. All six ofthe
served defendants were current employees of the penitentiary when they were served and are being
represented by one lawyer from the office of the Attorney General for the State of South Dakota.
The four unserved defendants are former employees of the SDSP and it is presumed they will also
be defended by the same lawyer who has already appeared for the other defendants. It is also
apparent that counsel who represents the served defendants has access to the information or persons
who have the information about the last known addresses of the unserved defendants. It appears
service can be accomplished while at the same time protecting the security and confidentiality ofthe
addresses of the former employees. Counsel for the served defendants can confidentially provide
the last known addresses of the unserved defendants to the U.S. Marshal so the Summons and
Complaint can be served on those four individuals. The U.S. Marshal should keep the addresses
confidential and the Clerk of Court should file the return ofservice under seal along with a redacted
version of the return of service. Only the version with the redacted addresses should be made
available to Tiedeman or the public. In the alternative, counsel for the defense could accept service
for the four unserved defendants without disclosing their addresses to anyone.

3.

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT.

Tiedeman's proposed amendment is not a short and plain statement of a claim showing that
Tiedeman is entitled to relief(See Rules ofCivil Procedure 8(a)(2». It is not a statement of any new
claim or theory for recovery. The proposed amendment doesn't say what the new claim is. The
information included within the proposed amendment is simply a recitation of statutes which
Tiedeman believes apply to his case (two of which are criminal statutes), together with an affidavit

4

and letters which at best constitute evidence which is pertinent to his already existing claims or
theories ofrecovery. Tiedeman's proposed amendment adds nothing new except perhaps some new
or different facts not previously contained within the record.
On the other hand, Tiedeman's proposed amendment doesn't prejudice the defense any
perceivable way. Allowing the proposed amendment need not affect the schedule or require
additional pleading or briefing relative to the pending summary judgment motion. Pursuant to Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(d) and in the interests of judicial efficiency it is appropriate to allow the
amendment despite its empty substance. It is also appropriate under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure
15(a)(3), the court's inherent authority, and in the interests ofjudicial efficiency to order that the
defense does not need to file an Answer to the amendment. The Answer already on file is sufficient
(Doc. 28). The defendants could file an amended Answer if they believe it necessary or desirable.

4.

TO EXTEND TIME.

A response to a pleading is necessary only when a pleading contains a claim against an
opposing party. The defendants' Answer does not make any claim against Tiedeman. Defendants
are simply defending themselves against Tiedeman's claims against them. There is no provision in
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for filing a pleading in response to a defendant's Answer.
There is no need to file a response to an Answer. To file a response to defendants' joint Answer can
add nothing to the pleadings in the case. There being no need to file a response to defendants' joint
Answer, there is no need to extend time for filing a pointless pleading.

ORDER

It is ORDERED:

1.

The Motion to be provided the addresses for the four unserved defendants is

GRANTED (Doc. 24). Counsel for the served defendants must confidentially provide the last known
addresses of the unserved defendants to the U.S. Marshal so the Summons and Complaint can be
served on those four individuals. The U.S. Marshal must keep the addresses confidential. The U.S.
Marshal must provide the Clerk of Court a version of the return of service which redacts the
addresses confidentially provided by counsel. The Clerk of Court must file the U.S. Marshals'

5

unredacted return of service under seal. Only the version with the redacted addresses may be made
available to anyone, including Tiedeman. ALTERNATIVELY, counsel for the defense may accept
service for the four unserved defendants without disclosing their addresses to anyone.
2.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) and in the interests ofjudicial

efficiency the Motion to Amend is GRANTED (Doc. 27). The document already on file (Doc. 27)
is Ordered to be the Amended Complaint so that Plaintiff Tiedeman does not need to file another
document identified as the Amended Complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3),
the court's inherent authority, and in the interests ofjudicial efficiency the defendants do not need
to file an Amended Answer to the Amended Complaint. The Answer already on file is sufficient
(Doc. 28). The defendants are not precluded from filing an Amended Answer if they wish.
3.

The motion to for an extension oftime to file a response to defendants' Answer (Doc.

35) is DENIED.
Dated this l!fday of May, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

Jo
States Magistrate Judge

6