Oswald v. Pollard et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 6/12/2017. 60 Defendant's MOTION to Amend/Correct GRANTED to the extent that the plaintiff can substitute defendants' real names for Doe placeholders and DENIED as to the remaining requests. The cour t ORDERS that Jesse Laning, Carol Al-Rahrawy and Nurse Westphal shall be substituted for Jane Doe #1; J. Bleder, E. Marwitz, M. Moore and J. Beahm shall be substituted for John Doe. Defendants Laning, Al-Rahrawy, Westphal, Bleder, Marwitz, Moore and Beahm shall file responsive pleading to complaint within 60 days. 63 Defendants' MOTION to Reset/Extend Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions GRANTED; Discovery now due 9/29/2017, Dispositive Motions now due 10/30/2017. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Daniel Oswald at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DANIEL PERRY OSWALD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-991-pp

JEFFREY MANLOVE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO
SUBSTITUTE NAMES FOR DOE PLACEHOLDERS (DKT. NO. 60) AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RESET DISCOVERY AND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES (DKT. NO. 63)
______________________________________________________________________________
On November 23, 2016, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed on
deliberate indifference claims against unidentified defendants. Dkt. No. 27. The
court ordered the plaintiff to use discovery to identify the real names of the
defendants, and instructed him to file a motion to substitute the real names for
the Doe placeholders once he learned their names.
On May 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion asking, in part, that the
court substitute Jesse Laning, Carol Al-Rahrawy, and Nurse Westphal for
defendant Jane Doe #1, and J. Bleder, E. Marwitz, M. Moore, and J. Beahm for
John Doe. Dkt. No. 60. The plaintiff explained in his motion that all three
nurses were responsible for entering prescriptions during the time he was
waiting for someone to change his prescription for migraines. The plaintiff also
explains that a different correctional officer made each of the denials for linens,
clothes, or adult diapers after he wet his bed. In light of these explanations, the
1

court will grant the plaintiff’s motion to substitute the names he provided for
the Doe placeholders.
In the same motion, the plaintiff asked the court to send him a copy of
his amended complaint. Dkt. No. 60 at 1. It is not clear why the plaintiff needs
the copy. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the court does not provide
parties with copies free of charge. The court instructs parties to keep copies of
every document they file; if they fail to do so, they must pay $0.10 per page to
obtain a copy. The plaintiff indicates that he is indigent, but nearly all
prisoners (and many others) who file complaints are indigent, so this is an
insufficient reason on its own for the court to provide a free copy to the
plaintiff. Because the plaintiff has failed to provide a compelling reason as to
why the court should depart from its general policy of requiring payment for all
copies, the court will deny the plaintiff’s request. The plaintiff’s amended
complaint is seventeen pages long, which means he needs to send the court
$1.70 before the court will send him a copy.
The plaintiff also asks the court to require the defendants to provide him
with a copy of his medical documents on a computer disc and to compel the
defendants to provide him with certain documents. Id. at 2-3. The court
already has addressed similar requests in its May 23, 2017 order. Dkt. No. 59.
(The court entered the May 23 order the day before the court received this
current motion, so it is likely that the plaintiff had not received or read the May
23 order before he mailed this motion.) As the court noted in the May 23 order,
the court will not require the defendants to pay for the plaintiff’s discovery
2

costs when he has access to the documents he wants through his institution.
In addition, the local rules require that before a party asks the court to order
the other side to turn over discovery, that party first make his requests directly
to opposing counsel. The plaintiff should write a letter to opposing counsel,
stating clearly what he wants and why. The court anticipates that the parties
will be able to work out many of their disputes this way, without court
involvement.
Finally, the plaintiff indicates that if the defendants object to anything he
asks for, the court should appoint a lawyer to represent him. The court
repeatedly has denied the plaintiff’s request for an attorney. Dkt. Nos. 27, 48,
59. Nothing has changed since the plaintiff made those requests; the court has
no reason to reconsider its decision.
On June 9, 2017, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to reset
the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in light of the newly identified
defendants. Dkt. No. 63. The court will grant that motion. To allow the plaintiff
sufficient time to obtain discovery from the newly identified defendants, the
court will set a new discovery deadline of September 29, 2017. If the parties
want to file dispositive motions, they must do so by October 30, 2017.
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s request to substitute the defendants’
real names for the Doe placeholders. Dkt. No. 60. The court DENIES the
remaining requests in the plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. No. 60.

3

The court ORDERS that the clerk of court shall substitute Jesse Laning,
Carol Al-Rahrawy, and Nurse Westphal for defendant Jane Doe #1, and J.
Bleder, E. Marwitz, M. Moore, and J. Beahm for John Doe.
The court ORDERS that, under an informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, today the court will
electronically send copies of the plaintiff’s complaint and this order to the
Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on Jesse Laning, Carol AlRahrawy, Nurse Westphal, J. Bleder, E. Marwitz, M. Moore, and J. Beahm.
The court also ORDERS that, under the informal service agreement
between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, defendants Jesse
Laning, Carol Al-Rahrawy, Nurse Westphal, J. Bleder, E. Marwitz, M. Moore,
and J. Beahm shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty
days of receiving electronic notice of this order.
Finally, the court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to reset the discovery
and dispositive motion deadlines, dkt. no. 63, and EXTENDS the discovery
deadline to September 29, 2017 and the dispositive motion deadlines to
October 30, 2017.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 12th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

4