Williams v. Mikutis et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C. Griesbach on 7/31/18. Plaintiff's 48 Motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff must identify the names of the Doe defendants by 8/31/18. Parties must complete discovery by 11/19/18. Dispositi ve motions are to be filed by 12/19/18. Plaintiff's 49 Motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendants must respond to plaintiff's 50 Motion to compel by 8/14/18. If plaintiff wants to reply in support of his motion, he must do so by 8/28/18. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Travis Delaney Williams)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TRAVIS DELANEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-C-1319

KURT MIKUTIS, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Travis Delaney Williams filed several motions, which the court will address in turn.
First, plaintiff requests a ninety-day extension of the discovery deadline, which is currently set for
August 21, 2018. He states that attorney Michael Schaalman, who has been recruited to assist
plaintiff in identifying the names of the Doe defendants, has not yet responded to his request for an
update. He explains that, once the Does are identified, he will need to conduct discovery and the
current deadline will not provide sufficient time to do that. The court will require plaintiff to identify
the names of the Does by August 31, 2018. If he is unable to do so, he must notify the court
promptly. The court also will grant his motion for an extension of the discovery deadline. The parties
must complete discovery by November 19, 2018. If a party wishes to file a dispositive motion, it
must do so by December 19, 2018.
Next, plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its denial of his request that the
court include response deadlines in every order and its denial of his request that the court order his
institution to provide him with copies of his medical records. The court will deny plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff first asserts that the law librarian would not give him additional time because the court did
not include a response deadline in its order. According to the information request form plaintiff
provided, plaintiff’s request for additional time was denied on June 8, 2017. ECF No. 44-1. At that
point, there were no pending motions in this case. Plaintiff had filed an amended complaint on March
6, 2017, which had yet to be screened. Thus, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the librarian did not
reject his request because the court had not included a response deadline in an order; the librarian
rejected his request because, as she noted, there were no pending deadlines. The court will not
reconsider its denial of this request.
With respect to plaintiff’s request that the court order his institution to pay for copies of his
medical records, the court again finds that plaintiff must comply with the institution’s policies.
Plaintiff asserts that he has complied with the policies; the information request form he attaches
suggests otherwise. Id. The response plaintiff received to his request explains that he had already
spent the $50 allotted for his case. Accordingly, plaintiff did not comply with the institution’s policy
insofar as he sought to spend more money on this case than is allowed under the policy. The court
reminds plaintiff that there is "no constitutional entitlement to subsidy" to prosecute civil lawsuits.
Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 528 (7th Cir. 2002). It is plaintiff’s responsibility to budget his
limited resources. The court will not require his institution to give him additional money simply
because he failed to do so. The court will deny his motion.
Finally, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. In response to several of plaintiff’s discovery
requests, defendants stated that they did not have any documents responsive to his requests. Plaintiff
asserts that this is untrue. He explains that he has seen documents that would have been responsive.
Plaintiff also indicates that he called opposing counsel at her office, but she refused to discuss his
2

discovery requests with him. I will require defendants to respond to plaintiff’s motion by August 14,
2018. If plaintiff wants to reply in support of his motion, he must do so by August 28, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time
(ECF No. 48) is GRANTED. Plaintiff must identify the names of the Doe defendants by August 31,
2018. The parties must complete discovery by November 19, 2018. If a party wishes to file a
dispositive motion, it must do so by December 19, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 49) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants must respond to plaintiff’s motion to compel
(ECF No. 50) by August 14, 2018. If plaintiff wants to reply in support of his motion, he must do
so by August 28, 2018.
Signed in Green Bay, Wisconsin, this 31st day of July, 2018.

s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3