Naseer, Hakim v. Belz, Thomas et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying plaintiff's 10 Motion for the court to order defendants to turn over legal mail; 15 Motion for Sanctions; 19 Motion for the court to send a criminal investigation referral to U.S. Attorney's Office concerning proof of U.S. federal mail tampering, and 30 Motion for Court Order directing GBCI to turn over plaintiff's legal property. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/15/2014. (jef),(ps) Corrected docket text, 5/16/2014 (jef).

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

HAKIM NASEER,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

13-cv-821-bbc

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BELZ, et al.,
Defendants.

In this case, plaintiff Hakim Naseer is proceeding on claims that prison staff has been
retaliating against him by contaminating his food. The parties currently are briefing defendants’
motion for summary judgment for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The
parties also have briefed plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which Judge Crabb
will address along with the summary judgment motion.
Now before the court is a series of motions filed by plaintiff regarding perceived
tampering with his legal mail. First, plaintiff filed a motion to “order the defendants to turn over
legal mail,” dkt. 10, asserting that prison staff confiscated and then misplaced at least one copy
of his preliminary injunction motion, keeping the copy from reaching defendants or the court
(plaintiff does not know which of his copies reached its destination). But this court received its
copy of plaintiff’s motion, as have defendants,1 so this request must be denied as moot.
Next, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, dkt. 15, arguing that delays in prison staff
mailing the motion meant that the motion did not reach the court by plaintiff’s deadline. There
is no reason to sanction defendants for minor delays in passing along plaintiff’s submissions.

1

In any case, as plaintiff should be aware from the court’s January 31, 2014 memorandum, he no
longer needs to send copies of his court filings to defendants, as they have agreed to accept electronic
service of those documents.

As just noted, the court received plaintiff’s motion (and defendants’ response) and the court will
rule on this motion in conjunction with its ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
In both of plaintiff’s sanctions motion and a third motion, dkt. 19, plaintiff asks the
court to refer his allegations of mail tampering to the United States Attorney. The court declines
to do so, seeing no evidence of misconduct, let alone criminal acts. Plaintiff is free to contact
the United States Attorney himself regarding this alleged misconduct.
Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion to “order GBCI officials to stop making attempts at
sabotaging [his] case,” dkt. 30, in which he states that after he was transferred to the Green Bay
Correctional Institution in April 2014, he did not receive all of his legal materials or a copy of
his “property inventory sheet,” and he has not been given the allowable number of pen inserts.
As plaintiff should be aware from his long history of civil litigation in this court, it is not the
court’s task in this lawsuit to litigate brand-new access to the courts claims.

Plaintiff is

proceeding on claims regarding food contamination, so that should be the focus of his efforts.
If a prison official was actively and physically blocking plaintiff's ability to come to trial or
defend against a motion filed by the defendants, then the court may ask defendants' counsel to
look into the matter and report the circumstances to the court, but at this point, plaintiff does
not provide enough information for me to entertain his requests. Defendants state that they
have now given plaintiff a copy of his property inventory sheet and they have explained their
new pen insert policies. Plaintiff does not describe in detail what materials he thinks are missing,
and I cannot take serious the idea that plaintiff’s lack of pen inserts is harming him given the
volume of documents he has submitted to the court.

2

ORDER
It is ORDERED that
(1)

Plaintiff Hakim Naseer’s motion to “order the defendants to turn over
legal mail,” dkt. 10, is DENIED as moot.

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, dkt. 15, is DENIED.

(3)

Plaintiff’s motion to refer his allegations of mail tampering to the United
States Attorney, dkt. 19, is DENIED.

(4)

Plaintiff’s motion to “order GBCI officials to stop making attempts at
sabotaging [his] case,” dkt. #30, is DENIED.

Entered this 15th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

3