Wilke, Kevin v. Nurse that worked June 27, 2014 - July 2, 2014, name unknown et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/4/2016 DENYING AS MOOT 56 plaintiff's Motion for Clarification as to Relevance of Discovery. The court ORDERS that 33 and 34 plaintiff's letter requests for injunctive relief are DENIED. The court ORDERS that the discovery shall be completed no later than 3/25/2016. The court further ORDERS that any party who wants to file a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for summary judgment, the deadline to file is 4/25/2016. Please refer to the Order for additional pertinent details. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
KEVIN L. WILKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-1144-pp

TANYA SHAW,
DR. TEODORA ROMANA,
LIETUENANT HEATHER WITTIG,
SHERIFF JEFFREY NETT,
CORPORAL PAUL HANNEMAN,
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC.,
BONNIE ALT, and
SANDRA GEISTLER,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER REQUESTS FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (DKT. NOS. 33, 34), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO RELEVANCE OF DISCOVERY (DKT. NO. 56),
AND SETTING NEW DEADLINES FOR DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff is proceeding on Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claims
regarding deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The plaintiff injured
his fingers and knuckles during a fight in his jail block, and the complaint
alleges that the guards and medical staff ignored his request for medical care.
The plaintiff alleges that numerous individuals were part of a breakdown in
communications regarding treatment for his fingers, which he now alleges are
permanently deformed due to the delay in treatment.

1 

On December 22, 2015, the court held a telephone hearing regarding the
parties’ pending motions. The court subsequently issued a minute order
resolving the defendants’ motion to compel and motion to dismiss. This order
addresses several other motions.
I.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33 and 34)
In February 2015, the court received three letters from the plaintiff

requesting access to certain legal materials. Dkt. Nos. 32, 33 and 34. At the
time, the plaintiff was in custody in the Marquette County Jail. Id. He has
since, however, been released. “[W]hen a prisoner who seeks injunctive relief
for a condition specific to a particular prison is transferred out of that prison,
the need for relief . . . become[s] moot.” Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F. 3d 862, 871
(7th Cir. 2004); Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996). Because
the plaintiff no longer is in custody, the court will deny the plaintiff’s requests
for injunctive relief against the jail because they are moot.
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification as to Relevance of Discovery (Dkt.
No. 56)
On May 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion asking for clarification

regarding the discovery requests he received from the defendants. Dkt. No. 56.
He asked the court to review the discovery he received from the defendants and
tell him whether certain of the items they requested were relevant to the claims
in his complaint. He argued that some of the requests sought irrelevant
information, and that others sought information that was prejudicial to his
character and his case.
2 

The court’s resolution of the defendants’ motion to compel addressed the
relevance of each of the defendants’ discovery requests. Accordingly, the court
will deny the plaintiff’s motion for clarification as moot. Consistent with the
court’s minute order, the plaintiff shall submit responses to the defendants’
discovery requests, as modified by this order, on or before Friday, January 29,
2016. To the extent the defendants have any discovery requests from the
plaintiff to which they have not responded, they also shall respond by that
date. Within ten days of this order, the defendants shall provide the plaintiff
with updated releases for the appropriate timeframe, consistent with the
court’s rulings regarding the interrogatories.
III.

Scheduling
On September 21, 2015, the court entered a text-only order suspending

the deadlines for completing discovery and filing dispositive motions until the
parties’ discovery motions were resolved. Now that the court has resolved those
motions, the court issues new deadlines below.
IV.

Conclusion
The court DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief.

Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34. The court also DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff’s motion
for clarification as to relevance of discovery. Dkt. No. 56.
The plaintiff shall respond to the defendants’ discovery requests, as
modified by this order, on or before Friday, January 29, 2016. To the extent
the defendants have any discovery requests from the plaintiff to which they
3 

have not responded, they shall also respond by that date. The defendants also
should provide the plaintiff with updated releases for the appropriate
timeframe, consistent with the court’s rulings regarding the Interrogatories,
within ten days of this order.
Parties must serve all requests for discovery by a date sufficiently early
so that all discovery is completed no later than March 25, 2016. If any party
wishes to file a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for summary judgment, that
party must file the motion, together with supporting briefs, no later than April
25, 2016.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 4th day of January, 2016.

4