Collins Bey, Robert v. Haines, Tim et al

Filing 13

ORDER that the parties treat Dr. Steve and Dr. John Doe as John Doe defendants until plaintiff can ascertain their true identities 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 11/25/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ROBERT L. COLLINS BEY,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

13-cv-618-bbc

TIM HAINES, PETER HUIBREGTSE,
MICHAEL MEISNER, TONY ASHWORTH,
SARA MASON, MARY MILLER,
CINDY SAWINSKI, KAREN ANDERSON,
CYNTHIA M. THORPE, DR. STEVEN,
DR. JAMES THORPE, DR. JAMES WOMMACK,
DR. WILLIAM GISWOLD and DR. JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Wisconsin Department of Justice has indicated that it will represent defendants Tim
Haines, Peter Huibregtse, Michael Meisner, Tony Ashworth, Mary Miller, Cindy Sawinski,
Karen Anderson, Cynthia M. Thorpe, Dr. James Thorpe, Dr. James Wommack and Dr. William
Giswold 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 these defendants. 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 system1 .
The Department has not accepted service on behalf of Dr. Steve or Dr. John Doe. In
their Acceptance of Service, the Department says they do not know the identity of Dr. Steve.

1

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.

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 defendants Dr. Steve and Dr. John Doe as a John Doe
defendants whose names plaintiff will have to obtain through discovery. If plaintiff does not
identify these defendants within the time set by the United States Magistrate Judge to do so,
plaintiff’s claim against them will be dismissed without prejudice.
If identity of these defendants is ascertained, the Department will decide whether to
accept service on their behalf, and if they do, you will not have to send a paper copy of each
document to them. If the Department does not accept service, you will have to send these
defendants or their attorney(s), a paper copy of each document.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the parties treat Dr. Steve and Dr. John Doe as John Doe
defendants until plaintiff can ascertain their true identities 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 25th day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
PETER A. OPPENEER
Magistrate Judge

2