Castellano v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/10/2017: GRANTING 33 Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Exhibits; DENYING 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; and DENYING without prejudice 4 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Clerk of Court DIRECTED to return requested exhibits (Docket #1-1 and #21) to Plaintiff. (cc: all counsel, via mail to John J. Castellano with requested exhibits) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOHN J. CASTELLANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16‐CV‐1248‐
JENNIFER SPOTTS,
JPS
Defendant.
ORDER
On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to have certain exhibits to his
complaint returned to him. (Motion, Docket #33; Exhibits, Docket #1‐1 and
#21). This is his second such request. See (Docket #13 and #14). This is the
final time the Court will return any materials to Plaintiff. Plaintiff should
keep a copy of everything he files with the Court, whether they be pleadings,
motions, exhibits, or otherwise.
The Court will also address Plaintiff’s other pending motions. On
March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “request for a court ordered motion to
compel interrogatories and discovery[.]” (Docket #28) (capitalization altered).
He states that he wishes to compel responses from Defendant and a person
identified as “Parole Commissioner Steven Landerman” pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 31(a)(2) and 33. Id. This motion must be
denied. First, as to Defendant, she is required to respond to discovery
requests in accordance with FRCP 33, 34, and 36, and there is no indication
that she has failed to do so as provided in those rules. Thus, it appears
Plaintiff’s request for a motion to compel is premature.
Second, as to the non‐defendant Landerman, the motion is
unnecessary. FRCP 31(a)(2) allows a court to provide leave to a party to take
a deposition by written questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2). However, none of
the instances where such leave is required is present here. Id. 31(a)(2)(A)‐(B).
Plaintiff is therefore free to proceed without the Court’s leave under FRCP
31(a)(1). Id. 31(a)(1). Still, as noted by Defendant in her response to the
motion, FRCP 31 has a number of procedural requirements that Plaintiff
must comply with if he wishes to conduct a deposition by written questions.
Id. at 31(a)(3) and (5), (b), (c). The Court cannot assist him in that regard, and
a motion to compel Landerman’s response to a written deposition would fail
without proof that those procedures were followed.
Finally, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel on September 16,
2016. (Docket #4). As stated in the Court’s January 24, 2017 trial scheduling
order, no motions for appointment of counsel will be considered until the
close of discovery in this matter. (Docket #20 at 5). The motion will, therefore,
be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for return of exhibits (Docket
#33) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall return
the requested exhibits (Docket #1‐1 and #21) to Plaintiff;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket
#28) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment
of counsel (Docket #4) be and the same is hereby DENIED without
prejudice.
Page 2 of 3
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 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?