Kissick, Michael v. Huebsch, Michael et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 50 Motion to adjourn preliminary injunction hearing. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/16/2013. (lak)

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

MICHAEL KISSICK,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
13-cv-99-wmc
MICHAEL HUEBSCH, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Administration, and DAVID ERWIN, in his official
Capacity as the Chief of the Wisconsin Capitol
Police,
Defendants.

The court is in receipt of defendant’s motion to dismiss, adjourn or strike (dkt. #50),
as well as the parties’ briefs in support and opposition to that motion. While agreeing that
the recent approval of amendments to Wis. Admin. Code ch. Adm. 2 (“Amended
Administrative Rule”) and revisions to the Department of Administration’s Access Policy
(“Revised Access Policy”) may impact the outcome of this case, the court does not believe it
substantially changes the thrust of plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the administrative
rules and access policy or, at least, believes that plaintiff is entitled to proceed with a hearing
on his motion for preliminary injunction to so argue.
Moreover, at most, defendants may be entitled to an order granting plaintiff leave to
amend his complaint, not to dismissal of this case as moot.
Finally, defendants seek to strike plaintiff’s reply brief, declarations and reply in
support of plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact. As set forth at the scheduling conference and
in the court’s subsequent order (dkt. # 17), plaintiff was granted leave to reply only to “new
matters raised by defendants.”

Accordingly, the court will only consider those materials

1

meeting this criterion. Of course, both sides are free to provide such further reply as they
deem appropriate during the course of tomorrow’s hearing.

Similarly, both sides are

admonished to focus their argument and presentation of evidence, if any, solely on the
Amended Administrative Rule and Revised Access Policy.

Entered this 16th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2