Maday v. Dooley et al
Filing
87
ORDER refusing 50 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 64 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 70 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 5/4/18. (DJP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STANLEY J. MADAY,
4:17-CV-04168-KES
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOB DOOLEY, CHIEF WARDEN AT
MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
DENNIS KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF
THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
DR. MARY CARPENTER, DIRECTOR OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JENNIFER STANWICK-KLIMEK,
DEPUTY WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE
STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; REBECCA
SCHIEFFER, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AT
MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
ALEJANDRO REYES, ASSOCIATE
WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; BRENT FLUKE, ASSOCIATE
WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STTAE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; JOSH KLIMEK, UNIT
MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; TRAVIS TJEERDSMA, CASE
MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; TAMMY DEJONG, CASE
MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; PA MICHAEL JOE HANVEY,
ORDER
MEDICAL PROVIDER AT MIKE
DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; PA BRAD
ADAMS, MEDICAL PROVIDER AT MIKE
DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DR.
STEPHAN SCHROEDER, MEDICAL
PROVIDER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MISTY TOLSMA-HANVEY,
NURSING SUPERVISOR, AT MIKE
DURFEE STATE PRISON INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LINDSEY
RABBASS, NURSE AT MIKE DURFEE
STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ROBIN MYER,
NURSE AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; CANDICE FEJFAR, NURSE
AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
DAYNA KLAWITTER, NURSE AT MIKE
DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DENNIS
CROPPER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
THOMAS HUITEMA, CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MICHAEL MEYER,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE
DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LORI
STRATMAN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MIKE GROSSHUESCH,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE
DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; NICOLE ST.
PIERRE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT
MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MURIEL NAMMINGA, LAUNDRY
2
SUPERVISOR AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; CATHERINE SCHLIMGEN,
LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE SOUTH
DAKOTA DOC, INDIVDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN CBM
FOOD SERVICES EMPLOYEES,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES; UNKNOWN SOUTH
DAKOTA DOC EMPLOYEES,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITES; UNKNOWN SOUTH
DAKOTA DOH EMPLOYEES,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES; JON E. LITSCHER,
SECRETARY OF THE WISCONSIN
DOC, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; KATHARINE A. ARISS,
ASSISTANT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE
WISCONSIN DOC, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; THOMAS P.
MALONEY, LIBRARY SERVICES AND
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATOR FOR THE WISCONSIN
DOC, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; UNKNOWN WISCONSIN
DOC EMPLOYEES, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND CBM
FOOD SERVICES, MEAL AND
COMMISSARY PROVIDER FOR THE
SOUTH DAKOTA DOC, OFFICIAL
CAPACITY;
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Stanley J. Maday, is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison
in Springfield, South Dakota. Maday filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Docket 1. The
court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy in its January 19,
3
2018 order and under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). There are several
motions pending before the court.
I.
Docket 70
On March 12, 2018, defendants, Bob Dooley, Dennis Kaemingk, Dr.
Mary Carpenter, Jennifer Stanwick-Klimek, Rebecca Schieffer, Alejandro Reyes,
Brent Fluke, Josh Klimek, Travis Tjeerdsma, Tammy DeJong, Michael Joe
Hanvey, Dr. Stephan Schroeder, Misty Tolsma-Hanvey, Lindsey Rabbass,
Robin Myer, Candice Fejfar, Dayna Klawitter, Dennis Cropper, Thomas
Huitema, Michael Meyer, Lori Stratman, Mike Grosshuesch, and Catherine
Schlimgen, moved for a protective order directing that all discovery herein be
stayed pending resolution of qualified immunity. Docket 43. Maday responded
and objected to the requested protection order. Docket 55. Magistrate Judge
Duffy granted defendants’ motion for a protective order in part and denied it in
part. Docket 57. Judge Duffy ordered defendants to immediately provide Maday
his medical records and kites regarding medical care. Id. Judge Duffy stayed all
other discovery pending the resolution of qualified immunity. Id.
The court construes Maday’s letter filed on April 17, 2018 to be an
appeal of Magistrate Judge Duffy’s protection order at Docket 57. Docket 70. A
district court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive
pretrial matter, such as a motion to compel, where it has been shown that the
ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 2007).
4
The district court reviews the objected-to portions of the order de novo.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Maday seeks to conduct discovery with defendants not represented by
attorney Frank Geaghan. Docket 70. First, the only defendants not
represented, at least in part, by attorney Geaghan are CBM Food Services and
Brad Adams. Maday fails to identify any need to conduct discovery with either
CBM Food Services or Brad Adams. Second, Maday’s letter indicates that he
needs discovery materials from Wisconsin defendants, who include Jon
Litscher, Katharine Ariss, and Thomas Maloney. Attorney Geaghan represents
the Wisconsin defendants and these defendants asserted qualified immunity as
a defense. See Docket 52.
Under Rule 26(c), “the court has discretion to stay discovery on other
issues until the critical issue has been decided.” 8A Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040
(3d ed.). A stay of discovery is within the district court’s discretion and is
reviewed by the appellate court for an abuse of that discretion. Steinbuch v.
Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 588 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc.,
348 F.3d 704, 713 (8th Cir. 2003)); see also Maune v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec.
Workers, 83 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding the district court's
granting of a party's request to stay discovery). The United States Supreme
Court has reasoned that “the ‘driving force’ behind creation of the qualified
immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure that ‘insubstantial claims against
government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery.’ ” Pearson v. Callahan,
5
555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v.
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 n.2 (1987)). Because the qualified immunity issue
may be dispositive, Magistrate Judge Duffy properly stayed discovery pending
the resolution of the qualified immunity issue. Thus, Maday’s appeal is denied.
II.
Docket 64
On March 12, 2018, Maday filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction. Magistrate Judge Duffy issued a report and
recommended that Maday’s motion for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction (Docket 39) be denied. Docket 50. Then Maday filed a
motion for reconsideration of denial of injunctive relief (Docket 50) and
correction of the record. Docket 64. But on April 17, 2018, Maday moved to
withdraw his motion for injunctive relief (Docket 69) and Magistrate Judge
Duffy granted Maday’s motion (Docket 72). Thus, Magistrate Judge Duffy’s
report and recommendation (Docket 50) is refused and Maday’s motion to
reconsider denial of injunctive relief (Docket 64) is denied as moot.
To the extent that Maday’s motion at docket 64 seeks to correct the
record, the record has been appropriately supplemented and now includes the
letter from Wisconsin State Circuit Judge W. Andrew Voigt.
Thus, it is ORDERED
1. Maday’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Duffy’s protection order at docket
57 (Docket 70) is denied.
2. Magistrate Judge Duffy’s report and recommendation (Docket 50) is
refused.
6
3. Maday’s motion to reconsider denial of injunctive relief (Docket 64) is
denied as moot.
DATED this May 4, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?