Gillis v. Raemisch et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting 84 Motion to have inspector's report submitted to the court at the time it is submitted to defendants' counsel and the report shall be filed under seal; entering 75 B proposed protective order; denying as moot 48 and 50 Motions; granting 88 Motion for Extension of Time ( Defendants' Brief in Opposition due 6/24/2010. Plaintiff's Brief in Reply due 7/6/2010.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 6/3/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NATHAN GILLIS, Plaintiff, v. RICK RAEMISCH, G. GRAMS, CAPT. ASHWORTH, SGT. MORRISON, LT. LIND, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants. ORDER 09-cv-245-bbc

Plaintiff Nathan Gillis, a prisoner at the Columbia Correctional Institution, is proceeding on claims that (1) defendant Capt. Ashworth violated his right to due process by filing a false conduct report against him; (2) defendants G. Grams and Rick Raemisch violated his right to due process by ignoring his complaints; (3) defendant Lt. Lind violated his right to due process by holding an unfair disciplinary hearing; (4) defendants Grams and Sgt. Morrison subjected him to inhumane conditions of confinement in the DS-1 unit in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (5) John Doe defendants destroyed plaintiff's religious items in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Now before the court is plaintiff's motion to have his inspector submit his findings to the court at the same time he submits them to defendants' counsel. (Dkt. 84). Defendants have no objection as long as the document is filed under seal. (Dkt. 87). Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be granted and the report shall be filed under seal. Defendants also reference their proposed protective order relating to the inspection (Exh. B to dkt. 75); to the extent its proposed conditions are not superseded by today's order, defendants' proposed protective order is

accepted and entered. These rulings render plaintiff's related motions, docketed as 48 and 50 moot and they will denied on that basis. Next, defendants have filed a motion for an extension of time of 15 days until June 24, 2010 to file their response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 88. This motion will be granted and plaintiff may have until July 6, 2010 to reply.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to have his inspector's report submitted to the court at the time it is submitted to defendants's counsel, dkt. 84, is GRANTED. The report shall be filed under seal. 2. Defendants' proposed protective order, Exh. B to dkt. 75, is entered to the extent it is not superseded by ¶ 1 of this order. 3. Plaintiff's motions docketed as 48 and 50 are DENIED as moot. 4. Defendants' motion for an extension of time until June 24, 2010 to respond to plaintiff's motion for summary judgement until June 24, 2010, dkt. #88, is GRANTED. Plaintiff may have until July 6, 2010 to reply.

Entered this 3rd day of June, 2010. BY THE COURT: /s/ STEPHEN L. CROCKER Magistrate Judge

2