Jones, Adonis v. Haines, Tim et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 23 request for a stay. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/2/2016. (jef),(ps)

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

ADONIS JONES,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
14-cv-642-wmc
WARDEN TIM HAINES, et al.,
Defendants.

In their motion for summary judgment, defendants requested a stay of discovery not
related to the pending motion for partial summary judgment. (See dkt. #23 at 12-13.) As
defendants are seeking summary judgment on some, but not all, of plaintiff’s claims on
failure to exhaust grounds, the court will not stay merits-based discovery of matters unrelated
to defendant’s exhaustion motion. However, the court does agree that a stay of merits-based
discovery is appropriate as to the claims that are the subject of defendants’ motion.
Accordingly, defendant’s request for a stay is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART. Merits-based discovery regarding the following seven allegations is stayed pending
resolution of defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment:
1. In October 2012 and March 2013, Defendant Martin used “aggressive grips” on Jones
during escorts, “played” with his food trays and yanked on his clothing during patsearches.
2. In March 2013, Martin called Jones a “stupid nigger” and told him he would “break
[his] back.”
3. In May 2013 Martin moved Jones near another inmate so that inmate could spit at
Jones, and Defendant Esser was present.

4. In January 2014, Martin told Jones “I got a gun and I know how to shoot, we can’t
fight in here I’ll lose my job.”
5. Jones’ family called Defendant Haines about Martin’s treatment, but Haines never
acknowledged the requests and took no steps to intervene.
6. Defendant Hermanes falsely told Jones’ family that Jones had not been sexually
assaulted.

7. Martin harassed Jones on July 28, 2013, by kicking his cell and yelling at Jones that
he needed to take his medications.
All other discovery may proceed. In addition, if plaintiff believes he has grounds to seek
discovery on one of the above allegations because they may be relevant to claims that are not
the subject of the partial motion for summary judgment, plaintiff should consult with
defendants’ counsel to see if proceeding with that discovery is acceptable, and if not, may file
a motion for leave to proceed with respect to the desired discovery.

Entered this 2nd day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2