Leiser, Loren v. Voeks, Jeannie et al
ORDER amending the 20 Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order to add deadlines and explanations regarding identifying the Doe defendants. Deadline to identify Doe defendants by 1/27/2012. Plaintiff's amended complaint identifying the Doe defendants due by 2/27/2012. Now-identified Doe defendants' answer due 3/19/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/13/2012. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LOREN L. LEISER, SR.,
JEANNIE ANN VOEKS, R.N., DR. BRIAN J.
BOHLMANN, DR. KENNETH ADLER, DR. BRUCE
GERLINGER, DR. BRAUNSTEIN, DR. JOAN M.
HANNULA, REED RICHARDSON, former SCI Security
Chief, BRADLEY HOMPE, former SCI Warden,
JOHN/JANE DOE(S) “SPECIAL NEEDS COMMITTEE”
MEM BERS, JOHN/JANE DOES(S) “COM MITTEE”
APPROVING SURGICAL PROCEDURES and
JAMES GREER, R.N.
The Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order entered in this case on November 23, 2011
is hereby AMENDED to add the following deadlines and explanations regarding the Doe
defendants in this lawsuit:
Identifying the Doe Defendants
A) January 27, 2012: Plaintiff shall complete service of his discovery requests aimed at
identifying his Doe defendants. It is important for plaintiff to prepare clear, thorough discovery
requests so that the assistant attorney general and the institution have enough information to
provide useful responses. It is not the responsibility of the assistant attorney general or the
institution to determine the identities of the Doe defendants on their own. Upon receipt of
plaintiff’s discovery requests relating to Doe defendants, the assistant attorney general should
endeavor to provide the requested information as soon as possible but not later than the time
allowed by the federal rules of civil procedure. Although the assistant attorney general and the
institution have no duty to conduct a proactive investigation, the court expects them to use good
faith best efforts promptly to identify the Doe defendants in this case. The assistant attorney
general should file with the court a copy of his responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests relating
to the Doe defendants. The assistant attorney general also must report to the court whether he
will accept service of the amended complaint on behalf of some or all of the Doe defendants. If
he chooses not to accept service, then he must provide to the court, ex parte and under seal, the
known addresses of the now-identified Doe defendants so that the Marshals Service may serve
them with the amended complaint.
B) February 27, 2012: Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. Plaintiff may handwrite in his changes. The caption of the document shall be changed to identify it as the amended
complaint. Plaintiff shall replace all references to Doe defendants with the names provided to
him by the state. Plaintiff shall not make any other changes to his complaint without first asking
for and receiving permission from the court.
Note well: If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendants by
the deadline, then this court could dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims against the Doe defendants.
C) March 19, 2012: The now-identified Doe defendants shall file and serve their
answers to plaintiff’s amended complaint.
Entered this 13th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?