Grovogel v. Doe et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 11/27/2018. US Marshal to serve copy of second amended complaint and this order on defendant Karen Butler under FRCP 4. Defendant Butler to file responsive pleading to second amended complaint. Defendants Jane Doe LPN and Racine County Sheriff DISMISSED. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Ronald Grovogel)(cb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ______________________________________________________________________________ RONALD W. GROVOGEL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-1274-pp KAREN BUTLER, JANE DOE, LPN, and RACINE COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES MARSHAL TO SERVE DEFENDANT KAREN BUTLER AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT JANE DOE LPN AND NOMINAL DEFENDANT RACINE COUNTY SHERIFF ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Ronald W. Grovogel is representing himself, and was a prisoner when he filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, challenging various aspects of his confinement at the Racine County Jail. Dkt. No. 1. On May 9, 2018, the court screened the second amended complaint, dkt. no. 19, and allowed the plaintiff to proceed on claims that the Jane Doe defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when they allegedly failed to treat his shoulder injury, dkt. no. 20 at 6. The court told the plaintiff that he would need to use discovery to identify the names of the Jane Doe nurses. Id. To allow the plaintiff to learn the identities of the Jane Doe defendants, the court directed service of the second amended complaint on the Racine County Sheriff. Id. The court ordered that “once the Racine County Sheriff has received the second amended complaint, the plaintiff may submit questions to 1 the Sheriff, or ask the Sheriff for documents, relating only to identifying the Jane Doe defendants.” Id. at 7. The court also ordered, “Once the plaintiff has learned the names of the nurses, the plaintiff shall send the court a letter, asking the court to substitute the actual names for the ‘Jane Doe’ place holders.” Id. On November 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a letter stating that he had identified defendant Jane Doe RN as “Registered Nurse Dr. Karen Butler.” Dkt. No. 24. The clerk’s office has updated the docket and the court will order the United States Marshal to serve the second amended complaint on defendant Butler. The plaintiff’s letter does not mention the other Jane Doe defendant, Jane Doe LPN, and he has not identified her. The court will dismiss this Doe defendant. The court also will dismiss the Racine County Sheriff, who is a defendant solely for the purpose identifying the Doe defendants. The court ORDERS the United States Marshal to serve a copy of the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 19) and this order on defendant Karen Butler under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Congress requires the U.S. Marshals Service to charge for making or attempting such service. 28 U.S.C. §1921(a). Although Congress requires the court to order service by the U.S. Marshals Service, it has not made any provision for either the court or the U.S. Marshals Service to waive these fees. The current fee for waiver-of-service packages is $8.00 per item mailed. The full fee schedule is provided at 28 2 C.F.R. §§0.114(a)(2), (a)(3). The U.S. Marshals will give the plaintiff information on how to remit payment. The court is not involved in collection of the fee. The court ORDERS defendant Karen Butler to file a responsive pleading to the second amended complaint. The court DISMISSES defendant Jane Doe LPN and nominal defendant Racine County Sheriff. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 27th day of November 2018. BY THE COURT: ________________________________________ HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District 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?