David v. State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services

Filing 51

Order denying 50 motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Crocker's 1/27/10 order. Plaintiff has until 2/18/10 to sign and return the authorization of release of medical information to defendants counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/9/10. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------DAVID J. CLARK, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -5 3 6 - b b c v. K AR EN LEITNER, MIKE CARROLL, ROBERT K R I Z , NANCY SEEFELDT, ERICA SCHEDEL, R AN D I RAHMER, NICOLE SUESS, MELISSA S AU B Y , ABBAS ANGHA, KENRIC KLEMZ, S T EV E HAMILTON, DAN WINKLER, STEVE H AB LE, DANA KRUEGER, ROBIN MEIKLEJOHN, M A T T DAVIS, TERRY WELHOUSE, SCOTT A LL EN , LEON LIPP, JIM EMERSON, TONY GASSEN, MIKE PRIEBE, PAT KRIZ, RYAN ALBALAN, JA SO N PROBST, ANDY SCHNEIDER, DAISY B IL L IN G T O N , MATT DAVEL, LONNIE SELIG, M A R L A BOBHOLZ-DAVIS, DAN MINNICK, JEN N IFER DEGROOT, VIKKI WEBER, KATHY S A B E L , BYRAN BARTOW, CHRISTI BERMEJO and JO H N EASTERDAY, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------Plaintiff David Clark, a civilly committed mental health patient held at the Wisconsin R e so u r c e Center, has filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment due

1

pro cess clause. Now before the court is plaintiff's motion, dkt. #50, for review of Magistrate Judge Crocker's January 27, 2009 order, dkt. #49, denying plaintiff's motion to limit disco very, for a protective order and to compel discovery and his motion to appoint counsel. Plaintiff was also advised that if he did not sign and return a medical authorization form by F eb ru ary 8, 2010, defendants may move to dismiss plaintiff's action. Dkt. #49 at 2. Pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), I may reconsider the magistrate judge's order w here it has been shown that it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I will consider plaintiff' s motion as his objections to the order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). I un derstand plaintiff to object to the magistrate judge's order on the grounds that he is un able to litigate this case himself and is being retaliated against at the Wisconsin Resource C enter. Plaintiff has not shown or alleged that any retaliatory actions are preventing him access to the court. Therefore, he would need to raise these allegations in a new complaint. Further, plaintiff's failure to sign and return a medical authorization form is unrelated to his ability to represent himself. In his order, the magistrate judge explained that plaintiff could not self-select the documents from his records that he deems discoverable, but that he m ust sign a release of his medical records so that defendants may defend against his a lle g a t i o n s . instructions. I have reviewed the magistrate judge's decision and find that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be 2 Dkt. #49 at 2. Plaintiff has shown that he is capable of following these

denied. However, I will grant plaintiff an extension of time until February 18, 2010 to file his signed release form.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, dkt. #50, of Magistrate Judge Stephen C ro cker's January 27, 2010 order, dkt. #49, is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff may have until February 18, 2010 to sign and return to defendants' co un sel the authorization of release of medical information. E n tered this 9t h day of February, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3