Jackson v. Murphy et al

Filing 119

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 11/29/2018. Within 21 days defendants to file more detailed response to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. no. 64); plaintiff may file reply within 10 days of defendants' response. [6 7] Plaintiff's motion to correct named defendants GRANTED; Clerk of Court to ADD Welcome Rose, Lori Alsum, Charles Facktor as defendants, those defendants to file answer or responsive pleading within 60 days. 73 Plaintiff's motion for tem porary restraining order DENIED. 79 Plaintiff's motion to compel DENIED. 81 Defendants' motion for protective order DENIED. 90 Plaintiff's motion to postpone deposition DENIED as moot. 90 Plaintiff's motion to appoint coun sel DENIED without prejudice. 104 Plaintiff's motion to compel DENIED. Scheduling Order AMENDED; discovery now due 3/15/2019, dispositive motions now due 4/15/2019. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Keith Jackson at Oshkosh Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
KEITH JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-194-pp

DR. PATRICK MURPHY, GARY HAMBLIN,
EDWARD WALL, JUDY SMITH,
SARA SCHNEIDER, DANIELLE FOSTER,
MORGAN BAILEY, WILLIAM MCCREEDY,
WILLIAM GOLDEN, JAMIE BARKER,
DAVID BURNETT, LON BECHER,
HOLLY GUNDERSON, ASHLEE WALDVOGEL,
THERESA MURPHY, and CARRIE SPRANGER,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A MORE DETAILED RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. NO. 64),
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CORRECT NAMED DEFENDANTS
(DKT. NO. 67), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. NO. 73), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL (DKT. NO. 79), DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER (DKT. NO. 81), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO POSTPONE DEPOSITION (DKT. NO 90), DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 90),
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 104) AND
AMENDING THE SCHEDULING ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Keith Jackson is a Wisconsin state prisoner at Oshkosh
Correctional Institution, and is representing himself. He is proceeding on an
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim,
based on allegations that the defendants delayed and failed to treat his soft
tissue disease symptoms over the course of about four-and-a-half years,

1

resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering. See Dkt. No. 40 at 3-5. The court
will address several motions that the parties have filed.
I.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Injunctive Relief, dkt. nos. 64, 73
A.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 64.
He seeks an order “to stop Dr. Murphy from deciding, performing or having
anything to do” with providing him medical care. Id. at 1. The plaintiff
describes in detail the basis for his motion, which primarily was Dr. Murphy’s
alleged failure to diagnose and treat his symptoms, which he alleges resulted in
emergency surgery at Mercy Hospital on June 10, 2018, to remove the
plaintiff’s gall bladder. Id. at 1-2.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that on June 6, 2018, he was rushed to
the Mercy Hospital emergency room after vomiting blood and suffering severe
stomach pain. Id. at 1. He allegedly received a CT scan and was found to have
an enlarged gallstone blocking his cystic and bile ducts. Id. The plaintiff states
that he was given pain medication, told that he would be returned to Oshkosh
and hat prison staff would schedule surgery for him immediately. Id. The next
day, the plaintiff had blood in his urine. Id. He took a bag of bloody urine to the
“HSU” (Health Services Unit) and, once there, he provided another urine
sample which the nurse took to Dr. Murphy, who allegedly stated that the
plaintiff “was not peeing blood and that’s not blood in [his] urine.” Id. On June
8, the plaintiff visited Mercy Hospital and staff there told him that the surgery
had been scheduled. Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff states that he then was returned
2

to prison and that he was in pain, but had pain medication. Id. at 2. The next
evening, the plaintiff allegedly starting vomiting, and some of the vomit was
bloody. Id. Prison staff allegedly immediately transported the plaintiff to the
emergency room at Mercy Hospital and on June 10, his gallbladder was
removed. Id. He was hospitalized until June 15 and then returned to Oshkosh.
Id. The plaintiff states that Dr. Murphy did not see him when he returned to
Oshkosh, but that a nurse did see him. Id. The plaintiff also states that Dr.
Murphy has shown incompetency for years in treating him, and he attaches
several exhibits to his motion. Id.
The plaintiff’s exhibits consist of twelve Health Service Requests that the
plaintiff submitted between May 16, 2017 and June 7, 2018. Dkt. No. 65-3 at
1-12. The court describes these Health Service Requests below.
1)

On May 6, 2017, the plaintiff stated that he “need diaper size
large, still leaking still having stomach and testicle pain.” Dkt.
No. 65-3 at 1. The HSU Response indicates that the plaintiff
was scheduled to be seen in the HSU. Id.

2)

On May 9, 2017, the plaintiff stated, “although the diapers are
crap and the pee still running down my leg and I ruin my shoe
I still need more diapers also you still need to send the two
athletic supporters to [me] for 2 reasons being it holds diaper
in place and 2 it holds test[e] in place and still having stomach
and testicle pain (sic).” Id. at 2. The May 11, 2017, response
from Nurse Hansen states, “You will be scheduled to address
your concerns with a nurse, so we can better meet your needs.”
Id.

3)

On May 9, 2017, the plaintiff stated, “Dr. Murphy I want to and
need to go back to UW Hosp and see Dr. Bell because since Dr.
Bell performed that prostat[e] and bladder test I’ve been peeing
on myself and not feeling the urine or pee when it comes out
until it’s running down my leg, my penis hurt too as do my right
test[e] and the diapers and pads are junk these things are not
3

designed for men because the piss still runs down my leg. I want
to see Dr. Bell.” Id. at 3. The May 11, 2017, response from Nurse
Hansen states, “Continue with the pelvic floor exercises
prescribed. You are scheduled a follow-up appointment with
UW.” Id.
4)

On May 13, 2017, the plaintiff stated, “I wrote you about my
leaking urine and stomach hurt and needing diapers you said I
would see a nurse that was 3 or 4 days ago and still haven’t saw
them. I need diapers.” Id. at 4. The response indicates that the
plaintiff is scheduled to be seen in HSU by “RN/LPN.” Id.

5)

On May 24, 2017, the plaintiff stated, “I am asking you to
provide me “conducive” that works. A condom would fit better
and secure the urine from running down my legs and ruining
my shoes and clothes and I would also know when it’s full and
also possible now rinse and reuse, but now I need more useless
diaper I still have stomach pain in bladder area and penis.” Id.
at 5. The May 25, 2017 response indicate that the plaintiff was
scheduled to be seen in the HSU by “MD/DO” and that he was
“treated today.” Id.

6)

On February 21, 2018, the plaintiff stated, “I just pee and that
been a few min I now feel leaking what I don’t get is why the pee
isn’t stop by soaking in underwear even if I wrap up with towel
it will go down leg, my stomach also still hurt as well nothing
right.” Id. at 6. The February 22 response from Nurse Hansen
indicates that the plaintiff was seen that day for a nursing sick
call. Id.

7)

On March 21, 2018, the plaintiff stated, “Dr. Murphy I’m still
having urine leakage very bad soaking my socks and some right
testicle pain now and a mass can be felt as an attachment to
right testicle, I still having stomach pain.” Id. at 7. Nurse
Hansen responded that day and the response indicates that the
plaintiff had a nursing sick call that day and that he was
scheduled to be seen in HSU by “RN/LPN.” Id.

8)

The plaintiff stated (date illegible), “Dr. Murphy I’m still having
heavy urine leakage and it’s still run down my leg. You still
haven’t saw me about urologist last visit. I still have right
testicle pain and mass growing around testicle, I still have
stomach pain.” Id. at 8. On March 31, 2018, Nurse Hansen
responded, “Medical concern forwarded to Dr. Murphy.
Reported symptoms such as testicular pain, mass growth,
4

stomach pain reported by you required HSU to respond &
assess.” Id.
9)

The plaintiff stated (date illegible), “Dr. Murphy still having
stomach pain in the area we talked about and testicle pain also
still leaking urine badly right testicle pain.” Id. at 9. Nurse
Hansen’s April 19, 2018 response indicates that the plaintiff
was scheduled to be seen in HSU by “RN/LPN.” Id.

10) On May 4, 2018, the plaintiff stated, “Dr. Murphy I’m still
experiencing stomach pain, testicle pain and heavy bladder
leakage; also that problem with restricted breathing.” Id. at 10.
Nurse Hansen’s May 5, 2018 response indicates that the
plaintiff had a nursing sick call “today.” Id.
11) On May 18, 2018, the plaintiff stated, “Dr. Murphy I went to
UW last Fri and Dr. Jarraud told me someone made a mistake
about doing the procedure for Botox on bladder, I’m still having
testicle pain stomach pain and heavy urine leaking.” Id. at 11.
On May 19, 2018, HSU staff commented, “UW-Urology wrote a
recommendation to monitor for now and follow-up in about 6
months. They did not write recommendations for Botox at this
time. Please resubmit if HSU evaluation is needed before then.”
Id.
12) On June 7, 2018, the plaintiff stated, “blood in urine.” Id. at 12.
A nurse signed the form, but it is not clear from the from if the
plaintiff received treatment that day. Id.
Dkt. No. 65-3 at 1-12.
The defendants assert that the court should deny the plaintiff’s motion
because the motion “makes clear that he is being provided with medical care to
treat his complaints.” Dkt. No. 68 at 2; Dkt. No. 69. According to the
defendants, the plaintiff’s disagreement with the care he is being provided is
not enough to prove deliberate indifference. Dkt. No. 68 at 3. They contend that
because the plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of the
underlying lawsuit or that he will suffer irreparable harm, the court should

5

deny his motion. Id. The defendants also state that they will provide the court
with a more detailed response if the court needs additional briefing. Id.
In his reply, the plaintiff states that he has suffered actual and imminent
injury based on Dr. Murphy’s failure to diagnose the gallstone, as well as delay
in treatment that could have eliminated pain and suffering. Dkt. No. 72 at 2.
B.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Almost a month after he filed the motion for a preliminary injunction, the
plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order “stopping any medical
treatment by Dr. Patrick Murphy[.]” Dkt. No. 73 at 1. The basis for this motion
is similar to the basis for the motion for preliminary injunction—he asserts that
Dr. Murphy has failed to diagnose his medical problems since he arrived at
Oshkosh and failed to listen to other medical professionals about his medical
conditions since 2010, and that most recently Murphy told the plaintiff that the
pain he had was gas but it was actually a gallstone trapped between “cystic
(cystic duct) and bile,” which resulted in the plaintiff having to have his
gallbladder removed. Id. In addition, the plaintiff states that he has been
leaking urine since March 2017, and that he had right testicle pain, but that
Dr. Murphy has not tried to resolve these issues. Id. at 2. The plaintiff states
that he does not “ever want Dr. Murphy to medically see me, treat me or make
any kind of decisions on my medical conditions or treatment.” Id.
The defendants’ response reiterates their arguments from their response
to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, i.e., that the plaintiff’s

6

disagreement with his medical care does not establish deliberate indifference.
See Dkt. No. 76.
C.

Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the issuance of injunctions
and restraining orders. The primary difference between a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction is that a court may issue a TRO
“before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1)(C). In this case, the defendants have had an opportunity to be heard
on the issue and, as described below, the court will order the defendants to file
a more detailed response. The plaintiff’s request for relief—asking the court to
order that Dr. Murphy not be allowed to treat him—does not warrant
immediate injunctive relief, that is, relief without hearing from the defendants.
Thus, the court will deny the plaintiff’s motion for TRO.
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one
that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the
burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The
purpose of such an injunction is to minimize the hardship to the parties
pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.” Fahenm-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d
712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has
the burden of establishing that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
claim; (2) he has no adequate remedy at law; and (3) he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm without the injunction. Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v.
Comm'r of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012), citing
7

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589-90 (7th Cir.
2012).
In the context of prisoner litigation, the scope of the court’s authority to
issue an injunction is circumscribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”). Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Under the PLRA,
preliminary injunctive relief “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and
be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C.
§3626(a)(2); see also Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (noting the PLRA “enforces a
point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging prison
conditions: prisons officials have broad administrative and discretionary
authority over the institutions they manage”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
As the court explained when it previously denied the plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction to have Dr. Murphy stop treating him,
[m]ere medical malpractice or a disagreement with a doctor’s
medical judgment is not deliberate indifference. Edwards v. Snyder,
478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 107 (1976)). At the same time, the fact that a plaintiff received
some medical care does not automatically defeat a claim of
deliberate indifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was
“so blatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreatment
likely to seriously aggravate” a medical condition. Id. (citing Snipes
v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996)).
Dkt. No. 40 at 8-9. Based on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, it
appears that he has consistently been requesting medical care for the same
issue and that the issues have not been resolved over an extended period. The
8

plaintiff alleges: Dr. Murphy denied that the plaintiff’s urine was bloody a day
or two before he needed emergency surgery, Dr. Murphy did not treat the
plaintiff’s stomach pain which resulted in the plaintiff needing emergency
surgery to have his gall bladder removed, Dr. Murphy has not addressed the
plaintiff’s leaky urine issue, and Dr. Murphy has not addressed the plainitff’s
right testicle pain. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff understandably
does not want Dr. Murphy to treat him. He also claims that there are other
doctors at Oshkosh who can treat him. The plaintiff’s allegations constitute
more than mere disagreement with a course of treatment.
In their response to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, the
defendants state that they will provide a more detailed response if needed. The
court will require them to provide that more detailed response before resolving
the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The defendants should file that
response within twenty-one days of the date of this order. The plaintiff will then
have ten days to file a reply.
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Named Defendants, dkt. no. 67
The plaintiff has filed a letter “about defendants who were not added to

caption.” Dkt. No. 67. He states that Welcome Rose, Lori Alsum and Charles
Factor are not in the caption of the docket sheet and he asks that the court
correct this “as they were on my original filing.” Id.
The court did not add these individuals to the caption because the
plaintiff did not name them as defendants in the complaint. See Dkt. No. 1 at
1, 5-7. This probably was an oversight on the plaintiff’s part because his letter
9

to the court demonstrates that he thought there were defendants. Page 10 of
the 118-page complaint references Welcome Rose, Lori Alsum and Charles
Facktor in conjunction with defendants Holly Gunderson and Lori Becher, who
all allegedly are part of the administrative complaint department and who
allegedly knew that the plaintiff’s painful conditions were not being treated.
Dkt. No. 1 at 10-11.
The court will construe the plaintiff’s letter as a motion to amend the
complaint caption to add Rose, Alsum and Facktor as defendants and it will
grant the motion. The court will order service of the complaint on the new
defendants, direct them to answer the complaint, and amend the scheduling
order deadlines.
III.

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, dkt. nos. 79, 104; and Defendants’
Motion for Protective Order, dkt. no. 81
On August 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Dkt.

No. 79. He states that he believes, based on his “jailhouse lawyer handbook,”
that he can send up to twenty-five interrogatories to each defendant. Id. The
plaintiff states that the State defendants’ lawyer sent him a letter which the
plaintiff interprets as a refusal to answer all his interrogatories. Id.; Dkt. No.
80-1. The letter states that counsel returns to the plaintiff the thirty-one
interrogatories he sent and asks him to identify the twenty-five he wants the
State defendants to answer. Id. The plaintiff asks the court to compel the
defendants to answer his interrogatories. Dkt. No. 79 at 1.
The State defendants followed up with a joint motion for protective order
and response to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 81. The defendants ask
10

the court to issue an order that they do not need to respond to the plaintiff’s
most recent requests for admissions and interrogatories, and to deny the
plaintiff’ s motion to compel. Id. at 1. According to the State defendants, they
already have responded to the plaintiff’s first set of discovery, which included
responding to 233 requests for admissions. Id. at 2. They state that on August
3, 2018, they received another set of discovery, which included 124
interrogatories. Id. They attempted to meet and confer with the plaintiff and
told him to select the twenty-five he wants them to respond to. Id. According to
the defendants, the plaintiff failed to meet and confer; instead, he filed his
motion to compel and then, on August 15, 2018, the defendants received 90
additional requests for admissions. Id. They state that a large portion of this
discovery is duplicative of the discovery requests to which they already have
responded and/or can be answered by the plaintiff reviewing his medical
records and the relevant inmate complaints. Id. The State defendants ask the
court to enter a protective order, stating that they do not need to respond to
the plaintiff’s outstanding discovery request, and that the plaintiff must seek
permission from the court before he serves any additional discovery on them.
Id. With respect to the plaintiff’s motion to compel, the defendants contend that
the court should deny the motion because the plaintiff failed to meet and
confer, as required. Id. at 3. They also state that the plaintiff did not even
attempt to contact them to seek permission to serve more than twenty-five
interrogatories. Id.

11

The plaintiff since has filed another motion to compel—probably because
the court delayed in responding to his first one. Dkt. No. 104.
The court gets involved in the discovery process only if a party fails to
respond to interrogatories or requests for production of documents. In such a
situation, the party who made the requests may file a motion to compel with
the court, but only after conferring or attempting to confer with the party
failing to make disclosure or discovery to obtain it without court involvement.
Civil L.R. 37 (E.D. Wis.) The plaintiff must attempt to resolve discovery disputes
in this manner before filing a motion to compel discovery. Any motion to
compel should describe the efforts the moving party has made to resolve the
dispute directly with the other side. See Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a); Civil L. R. 37 (E.D.
Wis.). The plaintiff did not attempt to resolve his discovery dispute with the
defendants before filing his motion to compel. The court will deny the plaintiff’s
motions to compel.
“Any party may serve upon any other party no more than 25 written
interrogatories.” Civil L.R. 33(a)(1) (E.D. Wis.). Under this rule, the plaintiff may
direct twenty-five interrogatories to the State defendants and twenty-five to
defendant Wall, who is represented by separate counsel. See id. The plaintiff
may ask the State defendants’ permission to serve more than twenty-five
interrogatories, but he should make that request directly to the State
Defendants’ lawyer; he should not file a motion with the court. Civil L.R.
33(a)(3) (E.D. Wis.). Only if the defendants refuse to allow him more than
twenty-five interrogatories, the plaintiff believes that he needs to ask more than
12

twenty-five interrogatories to either set of defendants, and he unsuccessfully
attempts to resolve the issue with the defendants, may the plaintiff file a
motion with the court to compel discovery—and if even then, he must explain
to the court what efforts he made to work things out with the defendants on his
own. Id.
The court also will deny the defendants’ motion for protective order. The
plaintiff does not have an attorney and he has limited options for conducting
discovery. The defendants may object to discovery requests that they do not
believe they have to respond to. But the court will not deem all the plaintiff’s
admissions requests unreasonable. It appears that the plaintiff followed up
with requests for admissions after the defendants refused to answer the
interrogatories. And it is not clear if the defendants have responded to any
interrogatories at this point. In any event, the court has directed the plaintiff to
consult with the defendants and the court anticipates that the parties will be
able to work together to conduct any future discovery in a reasonable manner.
IV.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Postpone Deposition and Appoint Counsel, dkt.
no. 90
A. Postpone Deposition
On September 11, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to postpone his

deposition— scheduled for September 14, 2018—until the court appoints him
an attorney. Dkt. No. 90. According to the plaintiff, he found out on September
7 that the defendants had scheduled a deposition of him at Oshkosh on
September 14. Id. at 1. The plaintiff states that this violates the court’s order
which stated that he should have received notice of the deposition fourteen
13

days beforehand. Id. at 1-2. He states that the notice was dated August 31,
2018 but was not served on him until September 7. Id. at 2. The plaintiff also
states that the notice he received violates the court’s order that all discovery is
to be completed thirty days before the discovery deadline, which was
September 14, 2018. Id.1
The plaintiff’s request to postpone his deposition is moot. The court is
going to extend the deadlines, so the defendants may depose the plaintiff, if
needed.
B.

Request for Counsel

The plaintiff also asked the court to appoint counsel to represent him. Id.
at 2. He states that he cannot afford counsel, that his imprisonment will
greatly limit his ability to litigate the issues in this case, that the case is
complex and will require significant research and investigation, and that he
has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law. Id.
The defendants oppose the plaintiff’s request for counsel. Dkt. No. 94.
They contend that the plaintiff should use the approximately $10,000 which he
claims he has invested in the Federal Court Registry Investment System at the
United States Treasury. Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff responds that he should not be
required to use this money. Dkt. No. 96 at 1. He points out that he disclosed
On September 12, 2018, the State defendants filed a motion for
extension of time to conduct discovery and file dispositive motions. Dkt. No. 91.
The court granted this motion with a text-only order on October 12, 2018,
extending the deadline for the completion of discovery to October 29, 2018 and
extending the dispositive motion filing deadline to November 29, 2018. Dkt. No.
98.
1

14

this money in his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing
fee and that Judge Adelman ordered that the money stay in the account until
his release from prison. Id. The plaintiff states that he does not have the
authority to access the funds until after his release. Id.
The court previously denied the plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel.
Dkt. Nos. 40, 63. The court agrees that he has made a reasonable attempt to
find an attorney on his own. But, as explained in the court’s prior orders, the
plaintiff has shown that he is competent to conduct discovery and engage in
pretrial motion practice. The plaintiff’s filings continue to demonstrate his
ability to advocate for himself as well as his understanding of his claims and
the issues involved. The plaintiff is not a lawyer, so he doesn’t have the same
knowledge of the law that the defendants do. But the court takes account of
that fact, and provides appropriate minimal guidance as well as leniency as it
relates to his understanding and knowledge of applicable procedural rules. The
court again will deny without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel
because he continues to be able to represent himself at this stage.
V.

Plaintiff’s October 15 Letter to the Court, dkt. no. 101
On October 15, 2018, the plaintiff filed a letter to the court asking for

clarification on whether the court’s scheduling order required him to file a
dispositive motion, or whether it just allowed him to file one if he wanted to.
Dkt. No. 101 at 1. The court never requires any party to file a dispositive
motion (such as a summary judgment motion). It is each party’s choice

15

whether to file such a motion or not. The court simply sets deadlines by which
parties may file such motions if they choose to do so.
VI.

Conclusion
The court ORDERS the defendants to file a more detailed response to the

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. no 64) within twenty-one days
of the date of this order, as described in this order. The plaintiff may file a reply
within ten days after the defendants respond.
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to correct named defendants.
Dkt. No. 67. The court asks the clerk’s office to add Welcome Rose, Lori Alsum
and Charles Facktor as defendants.
Under an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department
of Justice and this court, the court ORDERS the clerk’s office to electronically
send copies of the plaintiff’s complaint and this order to the Wisconsin
Department of Justice for service on defendants Welcome Rose, Lori Alsum and
Charles Facktor.
Under an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department
of Justice and this court, the court ORDERS defendants Rose, Alsum and
Facktor to file a responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty days of
receiving electronic notice of this order.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order.
Dkt. No. 73.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 79.

16

The court DENIES the defendants’ motion for protective order. Dkt. No.
81.
The court DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff’s motion to postpone
deposition. Dkt. No. 90.
The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s motion to
appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 90.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 104.
The court AMENDS the scheduling order: the deadline for the parties to
complete all discovery is March 15, 2019, and the deadline for filing
dispositive motions is April 15, 2019.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 29th day of November, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

17