Johnson, Ivan v. Tuckwell, Robert et al

Filing 12

ORDER that for the remainder of this lawsuit, with respect to defendants Tuckwell, Sumnicht, Schrubbe, Reitz, Staniec, Hilbert, Braemer, Lind and Eager, plaintiff need only send a copy of his filings in this case to the court pursuant to an informal service agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Justice. The parties shall treat Bryan Umentum as a John Doe defendant until plaintiff can ascertain his true identity in accordance with a schedule to be set by the United States Magistrate Judge at the preliminary pretrial conference to be held in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 2/11/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IVAN JOHNSON,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

v.

12-cv-891-bbc

ROBERT TUCKWELL, PAUL SUMNICHT,
BELINDA SCHRUBBE, CHARLENE REITZ,
JEREMY STANIEC, BENJAMIN HILBERT,
DANIEL BRAEMER, BRYAN UMENTUM,
BONNIE LIND and JERRICA EAGERI ,
Defendants.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice has indicated that it will represent the defendant
in this case. Pursuant to an informal service agreement between the Department of Justice and
this court, the Department has agreed to accept electronic service of documents on behalf of
defendants Tuckwell, Sumnicht, Schrubbe, Reitz, Staniec, Hilbert, Braemer, Lind and Eager.
Therefore, for the remainder of this lawsuit, plaintiff does not have to send a paper copy of each
document he files with the court to the Department. All he has to do is submit the document
to the court, and the Department will access the document through the court's electronic filing

The Department has not accepted service on behalf of Bryan Umentum, In their
Acceptance of Service, the Department says there is not anyone with the name of Bryan
Umentum employed with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

II have amended the caption to replace Jeremy Stannecc with the name Jeremy Staniec, Daniel
Breamer with the name Daniel Braemer, Bonnie Lynn with the name Bonnie Lind and Jerica Eager with
the name Jerrica Eager as identified in the Acceptance of Service.

Discovery requests or responses are an exception to the electronic service rule. Usually, those
documents should be sent directly to counsel for the opposing party and do not have to be sent to the
court. Discovery procedures will be explained more fully at the preliminary pretrial conference.
2

Umentum employed with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
Pursuant to Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598,602 (7th Cir. 1990), it is the plaintiff's
responsibility to identify the defendants. If a defendant cannot be identified, he or she cannot
be served with plaintiff's complaint. Unless the defendant has notice of the claims against him
or her and an opportunity to defend against them, plaintiff cannot recover relief. Therefore, at
this stage of the proceedings, I will treat defendant Bryan Umentum as a John Doe defendant
whose name plaintiff will have to obtain through discovery. If plaintiff does not identify this
defendant within the time set by the United States Magistrate Judge to do so, plaintiff's claim
against him will be dismissed without prejudice.
If identity of this defendant is ascertained, the Department will decide whether to accept
service on his behalf, and if they do, you will not have to send a paper copy of each document
to him. If the Department does not accept service, you will have to send this defendant or his
attorney, a paper copy of each document.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the parties treat Bryan Umentum as a John Doe defendant until
plaintiff can ascertain his true identity in accordance with a schedule to be set by the United
States Magistrate Judge at the preliminary pretrial conference to be held in this case.
Entered this(~ day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

~~
PETER A. OPP N ER
Magistrate Judge

2