Ramirez v. SULIENE et al

Filing 23

ORDER staying briefing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction pending resolution of medical authorization issue. Plaintiff has until 8/14/09 to either return a signed authorization form or submit a brief to the court explaining why he will not sign it. Defendants have until 8/21/09 to file a response. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/31/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------LUIS A. RAMIREZ, P la i n t i f f , v. D R . SULIENE, RICK RAEMISCH, S. SITZMAN, L . ALSUM, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JO H N DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JO H N DOE 6, JOHN DOE 7, JOHN DOE 8, JO H N DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE 11 an d JOHN DOE 12, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------This is a civil action for monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which plaintiff Luis Ramirez has been granted leave to proceed on his claim that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in vio latio n of the Eighth Amendment. The parties are currently briefing plaintiff's motion for prelim inary injunctive relief. Now defendants have filed a motion for an extension of time to file their brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion. Their brief is due August 18, 2009, but because plaintiff has not returned a signed medical information release authorization, they ORDER 0 9 - cv -3 1 4 - b b c

1

argue that they should be granted 15 days from the return of the authorization in which to file their opposition materials. I see no reason to place such an open-ended deadline on the preliminary injunction m otio n briefing, particularly when such a ruling might not resolve the authorization issue, w hich affects not only the motion but this entire litigation. It is unclear how defendants can m ou nt a case-in-chief without some access to plaintiff's medical records. At the same time, plaintiff may have legitimate reasons for not signing the authorization--perhaps he believes it covers too long of a time period or allows defendants access to sensitive or embarrassing m edical information that is irrelevant to the case. The most prudent course of action is to stay briefing on the preliminary injunction motion and give plaintiff a chance to respond on the authorization issue. Plaintiff should be aware that this court will not force him to sign a medical release, but if he is unwilling to release relevant medical information to defendants, it is likely that the case will have to be dismissed. Accordin gly, IT IS ORDERED that briefing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary in ju nctive relief is STAYED pending resolution of the medical information authorization issu e. Plaintiff has until August 14, 2009 to either return a signed authorization form or su bm it a brief to the court explaining why he will not sign it. Defendants will have until

2

Au gust 21, 2009 to file a response. E n tered this 31s t day of July, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3