Jones v. International Association of Bridge Structural Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers et al
Filing
100
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia J Gorence on 8/23/2011. The plaintiffs motion to strike be and hereby is denied. (Docket #83). The plaintiffs motion for a conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) be and hereby is denied. Docket #84). The plaintiffs motion for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 and 70 be and hereby is denied. (Docket #86). The plaintiffs motion for production of Milwaukee County Jail inmate phone records be and hereby is denied. (Docket #90). The case continues to be stayed pending the resolution of the defendants motions to dismiss. No further proceedings or filings will be permitted without leave of the court pending resolution of the motions.. (cc: all counsel, to Ricky Jones via USPS) (mlm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICKY JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 10-C-560
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BRIDGE STRUCTURAL ORNAMENTAL
AND REINFORCING IRON WORKERS ET AL.
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 7, 2010, plaintiff Ricky Jones filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. '' 1981, 1983, 1985, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the Union Member Bill of Rights.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race
and retaliated against him Afor his success on previous lawsuits.@ (Complaint at 2). The
plaintiff also alleges that defendant Ironworkers Local 8 Welfare Fund violated ERISA when it
Aarbitrarily terminated my spouse and my health insurance benifits [sic], violated
confidentiality based on a discriminatory and retalitory [sic] animus from privious [sic] lawsuits
filed by me.@ Id.
-1-
By decision and order dated March 7, 2011, the court granted defendant Iron Worker
Local 8 Health and Welfare Fund Board of Trustees’ motion to stay further proceedings in this
case pending resolution of its motion to dismiss, as well as the motions to dismiss filed by
various co-defendants. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiff filed a AMotion for Reconsideration of
Order Staying Order of 7-Mar-11.@ The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
and allowed the plaintiff until July 11, 2011, to file his response to defendant Iron Worker
Local 8 Health and Welfare Fund Board of Trustees= motion to stay further proceedings. By
this order, the court clarifies that its order granting the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration did
not lift the previously entered stay. The order only allowed for the filing of the plaintiff’s brief
in response to the defendant’s motion to stay.
The plaintiff filed a document on July 5, 2011, which although titled “Response to Court
Reconsideration Order,” is his brief in response to the defendant’s motion to stay. Also on
that date, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike (Docket #83) and a motion for a conference
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). (Docket #84). The plaintiff seeks an order striking
defendant Iron Worker Local 8 Health and Welfare Fund Board of Trustees= motion to stay.
On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 and 70
or, alternatively, to be allowed to amend the complaint to include tort claims and if necessary
establish an escrow account for the placement of $5,000. (Docket #86). The plaintiff asks to
be allowed to work through Local 8 until a jury trial on all of the issues. Finally, the plaintiff
filed an objection to Attorney Yingtao Ho’s representation of certain defendants, as well as a
“Motion for Production of Milwaukee County Jail Inmate Phone Records.” (Docket #90).
-2-
As the stay has not been lifted in this case, all of the plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
Additionally, the court has considered the plaintiff’s brief in response to defendant Iron
Worker Local 8 Health and Welfare Fund Board of Trustees’ motion to stay further
proceedings and, on reconsideration, the court’s order granting the motion to stay stands.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to strike be and
hereby is denied. (Docket #83).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a conference pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) be and hereby is denied. (Docket #84).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 68 and 70 be and hereby is denied. (Docket #86).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for production of Milwaukee County
Jail inmate phone records be and hereby is denied. (Docket #90).
FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that the case continues to be stayed pending the
resolution of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. No further proceedings or filings will be
permitted without leave of the court pending resolution of the motions.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of August, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/Patricia J. Gorence
Patricia J. Gorence
United States Magistrate Judge
-3-
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?