Singh, Aman v. Marks, K. et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying as moot plaintiff's 25 Motion to Compel; granting in part defendants' 28 Motion to clarify and amend the preliminary pretrial conference order. The schedule is amended as follows: * Plaintiff may have until November 17, 2015, to confirm that he wishes to add as defendants the DOC subcommittee members named by defendants.* Defendants may have until December 7, 2015, to submit responsive pleadings.* Defendants may have until December 18, 2015, to submit a motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 11/3/2015. (jef),(ps)

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

AMAN SINGH,
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

14-cv-507-jdp

KIMBERLY MARKS, et al.,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Aman Singh is proceeding on claims that various state officials
unconstitutionally deprived him of opportunities to participate in programs while he was
incarcerated that could have earned him early release and rescinded his early release credits.
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed against three sets of “John Doe” officials: (1) Doe Program
Review Committee members; (2) Doe Appeal Administrator; and (3) Doe “Act 28 Repeal
Implementation Committee” members.1
At the August 28, 2015 preliminary pretrial conference, I explained to the parties this
court’s procedure directing plaintiff to use discovery to ascertain the identities of the Doe
defendants.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff submitted a document identifying the PRC

members: Paula Decker, Thomas Weigand, Teresa Weigand and Jeremy Gloudemans. Dkt. 24.
I also understand plaintiff to be naming Tad LeBreck and John Bett as the parties filling the
“appeal administrator” role. See id.

With regard to the “Act 28 Repeal Implementation

Committee” defendants, plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to provide the name of these Does.
However, defendants have submitted a supplemental answer to plaintiff’s interrogatories stating
that although there is no committee formally named as the “Act 28 Repeal Implementation

1

The order line of the court’s screening order referred to this committee as the Act 29 committee,
which appears to be a typo. The parties’ filings seem to agree that 2009 W isconsin Act 28 is the relevant
provision.

Committee,” there was a DOC subcommittee tasked with “[making] recommendations to Cathy
Jess regarding changes to the Division of Adult Institution’s policies based on the Wisconsin
State Legislature’s repeal of 2009 Wisconsin Act 28,” and providing the names of the members
of that subcommittee: Tony Streveler, Carol Briones, Kitty Anderson, Sally Tess, Shirley
Storandt, Mark Heise, Danielle Lacost and Dennis Baskin. Dkt. 27, at 2.
At this point, I presume that these are the defendants plaintiff is looking for, so I will
deny his motion to compel as moot. However, because plaintiff is the master of his complaint,
I will not add these parties to the caption unless and until plaintiff confirms that this really is
what he wants to do. I am giving plaintiff a short deadline to confirm this with the court. If
plaintiff does not respond to this order by the deadline set below, then the court will not add
any new defendants other than the Does that plaintiff already has identified.
Defendants have filed a motion to clarify and amend the preliminary pretrial conference
order. Dkt. 28. They first ask whether plaintiff is required to formally submit an amended
complaint including the names of the new defendants. The answer is No: plaintiff is not
required to do this. At this point, the new defendants should be able to understand the
allegations against them by plugging their names into the applicable portions of the amended
complaint, dkt. 5. Defendants also ask for a new deadline to submit their amended responsive
pleadings. I am granting that request, and I am extending the deadline for defendants to file a
motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The new dates are set forth below.

2

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (dkt. 25), is DENIED as moot.

(2)

Defendants’ motion to clarify and amend the preliminary pretrial
conference order (dkt. 28), is GRANTED in part. The schedule is
amended as follows:
•

Plaintiff may have until November 17, 2015, to confirm that he
wishes to add as defendants the DOC subcommittee members
named by defendants.

•

Defendants may have until December 7, 2015, to submit
responsive pleadings.

•

Defendants may have until December 18, 2015, to submit a
motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.

Entered this 3rd day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

3