Lewis, Richard v. Walls, Edward et al

Filing 17

ORDER regarding the identification of Doe Defendant Andrew Miller. (Amended Complaint due 2/26/2016. Answer due 3/18/2016). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 12/31/2015. (jef),(ps)

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

RICHARD LEWIS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
15-cv-51-jdp
MICHAEL STEPHEN, THEODRE ANDERSON,
BYRAN GERRY and ANDREW MILLER
Defendants.

The Acceptance of Service filed on October 9, 2015 by the Wisconsin Department of
Justice indicates that the department does not accept service on behalf of defendant Andrew
Miller because DOJ is unable to identify him. Accordingly, defendant Andrew Miller will be
treated like a Doe defendant with the following deadlines and explanations:

Identifying Doe Defendant “Andrew Miller”:
A) January 12, 2016: Plaintiff shall complete service of his discovery requests aimed at
identifying Doe Defendant Andrew Miller. It is important for plaintiff to prepare clear,
thorough discovery requests so that the defendants’ attorney and the institution have enough
information to provide useful responses. It is not the responsibility of defendants’ attorney or
the institution to determine the identity of the Doe defendant on their own. Upon receipt of
plaintiff’s discovery requests relating to Doe defendant, the defendants’ attorney should
endeavor to provide the requested information as soon as possible but not later than the time
allowed by the federal rules of civil procedure. Although the defendants’ attorney and the
institution have no duty to conduct a proactive investigation, the court expects them to use good
faith best efforts promptly to identify the Doe defendant in this case.

The defendants’ attorney should file with the court a copy of her responses to plaintiff’s
discovery requests relating to the Doe defendant. The defendants’ attorney also must report to
the court whether she will accept service of the amended complaint on behalf of the Doe
defendant. If she chooses not to accept service, then he must provide to the court, ex parte and
under seal, the known address of the now-identified Doe defendant so that the Marshals Service
may serve him with the amended complaint.
B) February 26, 2016: Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. The caption of the
document shall be changed to identify it as the amended complaint. All that plaintiff needs to
do in this document is tell the court the actual identity of his Doe defendant. Plaintiff does not
need to–in fact is not allowed to–make any other changes to his complaint without first asking
for and receiving permission from the court
Note well: If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint identifying the Doe defendant
by the deadline, then this court could dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims against the Doe defendant.
C) March 18, 2016: The now-identified Doe defendant shall file and serve his answer
to plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Entered this 31st day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2