Harris v. Superintendent Milwaukee County Correctional Facility-South et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 1/12/12 denying as premature 12 Motion for Order. (cc: via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ORBIN B. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-CV-872

SUPERINTENDENT MILWAUKEE COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - SOUTH,
D. SALSBURY, and
DAVID A. CLARKE, JR.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Now before me is plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing Milwaukee County
Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of
documents. Plaintiff also filed his discovery requests with the court.
In an order dated December 19, 2011, I granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and allowed plaintiff to proceed on claims against defendant D. Salsbury
and an unnamed defendant who is identified as the superintendent of the Milwaukee County
Correctional Facility - South. I dismissed Sheriff Clarke as a defendant because plaintiff did
not state a claim against him. Also as part of the screening order, I directed the plaintiff to
use discovery to determine the identity of the Superintendent of the Milwaukee County
Correctional Facility - South.
In his motion, plaintiff asserts that the Milwaukee County Correctional Facility - South
is under the jurisdiction and control of Sheriff Clarke and thus Sheriff Clarke possesses the
name of the superintendent at the relevant time. Plaintiff acknowledges that D. Salsbury is
also an employee of Milwaukee County and likely will be represented by the corporation
counsel’s office in this matter. However, plaintiff indicates that he does not have the name

and address of the corporation counsel who will be working on this case. Plaintiff maintains
that his “only recourse in discovering the identity of the Superintendent of the Milwaukee
County Correctional Facility - South is through Sheriff David A Clarke.” (Plaintiff’s Motion,
p. 3). This is not the case.
I applaud plaintiff’s diligence and eagerness to comply with my order. However, his
motion is premature. The United States Marshal is in the process of serving defendant
Salsbury with the complaint. Once defendant Salsbury is served, counsel will file an answer
or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s complaint on her behalf. Once counsel has made an
appearance for defendant Salsbury, plaintiff may serve counsel with his interrogatories and
requests for production of document. Additionally, after an answer has been filed, I will
enter a scheduling order providing ample time for discovery and a deadline for the
amendment of pleadings. There is no need to involve a non-party at this early stage in the
litigation. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for court order (Docket #12) is DENIED as
premature.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 12th day of January 2012.
s/
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2