Hatchett v. Eich et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on 10/18/2011 Granting 60 Motion for clarification to the extent that the Court clarifies that the Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING Wis. Stat. §§ 11.23 and 11.30 and Wis. Admin. Code GAB § 1.655 against Hatchett. (cc: all counsel) (nts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES G. HATCHETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 10-C-265

JUDGE THOMAS BARLAND, in his official capacity
as Chair of the Government Accountability
Board;
JUDGE GERALD NICHOL, in his official capacity
as Vice Chair of the Government Accountability
Board;
JUDGE MICHAEL BRENNAN, in his official capacity
as a member of the Government Accountability
Board;
JUDGE THOMAS CANE, in his official capacity
as a member of the Government Accountability
Board;
JUDGE DAVID DEININGER, in his official capacity
as a member of the Government Accountability
Board;
JUDGE TIMOTHY VOEKE, in his official capacity
as a member of the Government Accountability
Board;
and,
PHILLIP A. KOSS,
in his official capacity as District Attorney;
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of the Defendants for
clarification of the injunctive clause of the Court’s September 14, 2011, Decision and Order
granting the motion for summary judgment of the Plaintiff, Charles G. Hatchett (“Hatchett”),
in this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the First and Fourteen
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Defendants note that the declaratory
clause was limited to declaring that Wis. Stat. §§ 11.23 and 11.30 and Wis. Admin. Code §

GAB 1.655 are unconstitutional as applied to Hatchett. (See Court’s September 14, 2011,
Decision & Order at 46). However, the injunctive clause states, without similar limitation,
that the defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing the same three statutory and
administrative code provisions. (Id.). The Defendants seek clarification as to the scope of
the Court’s Order and, in particular, whether it enjoins the defendants from enforcing the
referenced provisions against any party under any circumstances. Hatchett has not responded
to the motion and the time for any such response has passed.
In its Decision and Order, the Court declined to hold the statutes and related
administrative code provision facially unconstitutional. See id. at 41-45. Therefore, it
follows that, the Defendants’ motion to clarify is granted to the extent that the Court clarifies
its prior Order to indicate that the permanent injunction against the Defendants enforcing
Wis. Stat. §§ 11.23 and 11.30 and Wis. Admin. Code GAB § 1.655 is with respect to
Hatchett.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
The Defendants’ 7(h) expedited non-dispositive motion for clarification is
GRANTED (Docket No. 60) to the extent that the Court clarifies that the Defendants are
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING Wis. Stat. §§ 11.23 and 11.30 and
Wis. Admin. Code GAB § 1.655 against Hatchett.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-2-