Tatum, Robert et al v. Meisner, Mike et al

Filing 189

ORDER that defendants shall respond to plaintiff's motion for contempt (dkt. # 180 / 188 ) on or before August 7, 2018, consistent with the requirements set forth in this opinion. Plaintiff may then have until August 21, 2018, to file a reply, if any. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 7/17/2018. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ROBERT L. TATUM, Plaintiff, v. ORDER 13-cv-044-wmc MICHAEL MEISNER, CATHY JESS and MICHAEL DITTMANN, Defendants. The court is in receipt of plaintiff Robert L. Tatum’s motion for contempt of court, in which he represents that since his transfer to Green Bay Correctional Institution (“GCBI”), he is not receiving the NOI-compliant diet ordered by the court. (Dkt. #180; see also dkt. #188 for more legible copy.) Tatum’s filing is difficult to read, but he appears to complain that since being transferred to GBCI, his bag meals are missing (or contain the wrong) items, including carrots and fresh veggies, wheat bread (receiving white bread instead), navy beans (receiving “wrong” beans instead), fresh fruit (receiving noncompliant canned fruit instead) and the BoostTM drinks (or at least the correct type of BoostTM drink). (Id. at ¶ 3.) Tatum further avers that he has attempted to raise concerns about the missing (or wrong) items with Food Services and by filing grievances with the Innate Complaint Review System, but has received no response. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Finally, Tatum states that he has provided the court order to staff who are indifferent or worse, with one Sergeant allegedly responding, “Nobody gives a fuck about your court orders.” (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 6.) The court will require defendants to respond to plaintiff’s filing on or before August 7, 2018, including filing a declaration by the person at GCBI in charge of ensuring compliance with the court order requiring NOI-compliant bag meals. That declaration should include details as to GBCI’s efforts to comply with this court’s order, including an itemized, daily list of the actual contents of Tatum’s meals for the period of 30 days immediately before this order (i.e., June 16 to July 16, 2018). Tatum may then have until August 21, 2018, to reply, including with an affidavit or declaration as to any areas of factual disputes. After that, the court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. Tatum’s filing also touches on other concerns about the decision to transfer him to GBCI and not receiving notices of e-filings. These concerns, however, fall outside of the scope of this lawsuit, and therefore, the court will not require defendants to respond to those portions of his filing. Tatum, of course, is free to file a separate lawsuit or lawsuits addressing these separate concerns. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1) Defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s motion for contempt (dkt. #180) on or before August 7, 2018, consistent with the requirements set forth above. 2) Plaintiff may then have until August 21, 2018, to file a reply, if any, again consistent with the requirements set forth above. Entered this 17th day of July, 2018. BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge 2

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?