Bub, Martin v. Swiekatowski et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 77 83 motions to postpone the trial date; denying 78 motion for assistance in recruiting counsel. Defendants are directed to send Bub another copy of the filings on the docket and any discovery materials they previously gave Bub. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/12/2019. (jef),(ps)

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

MARTIN R. BUB,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

WILLIAM SWIEKATOWSKI, SAMUEL MENNING,
and CHRISTOPHER STEVENS,

15-cv-195-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Martin Bub, appearing pro se, is a former state of Wisconsin inmate currently
incarcerated at the Winnebago County Jail. Bub alleges that when he was incarcerated at Green
Bay Correctional Institution, defendant prison officials retaliated against him for defending
himself against a conduct report, and violated his Fourth Amendment rights by authoring a
false incident report to give officials pretext to collect his urine, into which they then planted
cocaine. Trial is set for October 28, 2019.
Bub has filed a series of documents explaining his difficulties in preparing for trial. Bub
filed a letter asking the court to postpone the trial until 2020 because he had been
reincarcerated without access to any of his legal materials, Dkt. 77, and he followed with a
motion asking for the court to recruit him counsel because of this problem, Dkt. 78. Defendants
opposed the request to stay the trial date and stated that they would send Bub a complete set
of the filings on the docket. After receiving the documents, Bub was released and then
reincarcerated at the jail. He says that police officers threw away all of his legal materials while
executing a search warrant, so he is in the same position as before. Bub also says that he will
be unable to subpoena witnesses because he is indigent.

I will deny Bub’s motions for counsel and to postpone the trial. Bub’s major concern is
that he does not have his legal materials. This is an understandable concern, but one that
defendants previously rectified, and it can be fixed again. I will direct defendants to send Bub
another copy of the docketed filings, as well as any discovery they previously turned over to
Bub.
Bub’s remaining concerns are not reason to move the trial date or to recruit counsel for
him. I will follow this order with a trial preparation order that will include specific instructions
about how Bub should present his claims at trial. I will also hold a final pretrial conference by
phone at which I will explain how the court conducts trials and I will take questions from the
parties.
Bub does not explain what witnesses he wants to subpoena, but defendants will inform
him whether they plan on attending the trial in person, and Bub will not have to formally
subpoena witnesses who agree to testify. More details about how to call witnesses are included
in the court’s preliminary pretrial conference order, Dkt. 16. I’ll send the parties updated
versions of those procedures and materials along with the trial preparation order. Because of
Bub’s difficulties in obtaining legal materials, I will also extend the parties’ deadlines to submit
pretrial materials, as set forth in the forthcoming trial preparation order.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Martin Bub’s motions to postpone the trial date, Dkt. 77 and Dkt. 83, are
DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for the court’s assistance in recruiting him counsel, Dkt. 78, is
DENIED without prejudice.
3. Defendants are directed to send Bub another copy of the filings on the docket and
any discovery materials they previously gave Bub.
Entered September 12, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3