Tiedeman v. Weber et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 43 Motion for Protective Order; overruling 52 Objection to Magistrate Judge Order, adopting magistrate judge's report and recommendation; discovery is stayed pending resolution of the summary judgment motion. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 7/28/2014. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JESSE C. TIEDEMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOUGLAS L. WEBER, Director of
Prison Operations at South Dakota
State Penitentiary;
TROY PONTO, Associate Warden;
CLIFTON FANTROY, Unit Manager;
JENNIE PETERSON, Unit
Coordinator;
HEATHER VELD, Case Manager;
LINDA MILLER-HUNHOFF, Mailroom
Supervisor;
KAYLA STEKELBERG, Unit
Coordinator;
MIKE HOLMES, License Plates
Supervisor;
STEVE LINNIWEBER, Corrections
Officer; and
THOMAS LINNIWEBER, Corrections
Officer,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. 13-4126-KES

ORDER

Plaintiff, Jesse Tiedeman, an inmate at South Dakota State Penitentiary
(SDSP), filed a pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 1,
2013. Since filing his complaint, Tiedeman has filed a number of motions
regarding his case. On November 1, 2013, Tiedeman filed a motion requesting
that he be appointed counsel, Docket 4; on January 13, 2014, Tiedeman made
a motion to receive the addresses of four unserved defendants, Docket 24; on
January 17, 2014, Tiedeman filed a motion to amend his complaint, Docket 27;
on March 3, 2014, he filed a motion to extend time, Docket 35; and on March

28, 2014,1 Tiedeman again filed a motion requesting the addresses of the
unserved defendants. Docket 44. On November 18, 2013, this court denied
Tiedeman’s motion to appoint counsel because “Tiedeman’s claims are not
complex” and “Tiedeman appears able to adequately present his § 1983 claims.”
Docket 16. The remaining motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Simko for
ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On May 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge
Simko denied Tiedeman’s motion to extend, but granted his motion to be
provided the addresses of the four unserved defendants and his motion to
amend or correct his complaint. Docket 51.
Tiedeman has since filed timely objections to the order, requesting that
this court vacate the magistrate judge’s decision. Docket 52. Within his
objections, Tiedeman includes an objection to this court’s order denying his
motion to appoint counsel. Because Tiedeman can only object to a magistrate
judge’s ruling, the above objection will be considered a motion to reconsider.
For the reasons set forth herein, Magistrate Judge Simko’s order is adopted in
its entirety and the motion to reconsider is denied.
DISCUSSION
I.

Request for the Court to Vacate the Magistrate Judge’s Decision
This court’s review of the magistrate judge’s ruling is governed by 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The court may reconsider any pretrial matter determined

1

Magistrate Judge Simko’s order states that the second motion to receive
the addresses was made on March 25, 2014; careful reveiw of the record,
however, reveals that the motion was signed on the 25th and filed on the 28th.
2

by the magistrate judge “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), “[t]he district judge . . . must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.”
The only relevant objection to Magistrate Judge Simko’s decision is that
his motion to extend time should have been granted because defendants were
making a claim against him.2 Tiedeman argues that because defendants are
claiming that he is lying in his complaint, he needs extra time to respond to
their claims. Tiedeman appears confused, however, in what constitutes a claim.
A claim must allege facts that show a legally enforceable right that gives rise to
judicial action. In the instant case, defendants are not claiming that the facts in
this case give them any right to judicial relief. Rather, defendants are disputing
the facts alleged by Tiedeman. Defendants are telling their side of the story.
Therefore, the court will not disturb the magistrate judge’s decision to deny
extending time.
II.

Motion to Reconsider Appointment of Counsel
The court originally denied Tiedeman’s request to be appointed counsel

because Tiedeman appeared able to adequately present his claims and his
claims were not complex. Since denial, defendants have filed an answer to

2

Tiedeman’s other objections are to orders that were entered in his favor.
3

Tiedeman’s complaint and a motion for summary judgment. Throughout this
process Tiedeman has been able to present his claims and oppose defendants’
motions. Therefore, despite the many issues that may arise as this case
proceeds, the court finds that little has changed to support Tiedeman’s motion
to reconsider the appointment of counsel.
III.

Motion for Protective Order
Defendants move for a protective order directing that all discovery be

stayed pending resolution of the qualified immunity issue. Defendants have
moved for summary judgment on this issue, which Tiedeman opposes. For good
cause shown, the motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of the
summary judgment motion is granted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Tiedeman’s motion to reconsider his motion to appoint
counsel (Docket 52) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Simko’s order is
adopted in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for protective order (Docket
43) is granted.
Dated July 28, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4