Alexander, Robert et al v. Foster, Brian et al

Filing 287

ORDER that Plaintiff Robert Earl Alexander's motion to compel, Dkt. 271 , is DENIED. Discovery is STAYED until the court rules on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants motion for permission to discard plaintiff's documents, Dkt. 274 , is DENIED. Defendants may resubmit the motion with proper support. Plaintiff's motion for a hearing, Dkt. 276 , is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or hearing, Dkt. 278 and Dkt. 284 , is DENIED. The court will defer a decision on how to conduct future hearings until the court rules on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/12/2021. (kmd),(ps)

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

ROBERT EARL ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATHAN TAPIO and ROMAN KAPLAN,

OPINION and ORDER
17-cv-861-jdp

Defendants.
This order addresses several motions now before the court. Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is fully briefed and will be addressed in a separate order.
First, Alexander moves to compel defendants to produce certain documents, including
incident reports, prison policies, and healthcare records. Dkt. 271. I previously allowed
Alexander to request documents from defendants to replace documents that defendants had
destroyed, so that Alexander could use them to oppose summary judgment.

Dkt. 222.

Alexander filed his summary judgment opposition brief three months ago. Dkt. 256. He doesn’t
say that the documents he now seeks are among the destroyed documents and he doesn’t say
that he needs the documents to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Alexander’s
motion is denied. Further discovery is stayed until the court rules on defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
Second, defendants ask to discard approximately 1,000 pages of documents that
Alexander attempted to file. Dkt. 274. Defendants contend that the documents are stained
with urine and stuck together and thus cannot be scanned for filing. Alexander denies that the
medical records are soiled with urine and asks for a hearing to address the issue. Dkt. 276. I
would grant defendants’ motion if it were properly supported. But the motion relies chiefly on

unsworn statements in the attached incident reports. Dkt. 275-1 and -2. The attached
photographs, Dkt. 275-3, don’t show much. Three of the photographs show the same single
page, and two are too blurry to show much of anything. These photographs simply do not
corroborate the extensive problem reported in the incident reports. It is Alexander’s
responsibility to submit only clean, dry documents for filing, and I will not require institution
staff to handle soiled documents. But institution staff will have to do a better job of
documenting the condition of any allegedly soiled papers, and counsel will have to support any
request for relief with a proper affidavit or declaration. I will give defendants the opportunity
to resubmit a properly supported motion.
Third, Alexander contends that his disabilities are not being accommodated, and he
asks for restraining order or a zoom hearing. Dkt. 284 (which is a legible version of the motion
filed as Dkt. 278). His only specific allegation is that a prison doctor, Sarah English, has refused
to authorize what he calls a “pusher” for dayroom and outdoor recreation. But Alexander may
not bring new claims against new defendants in this case, which concerns only his medical care.
Fourth, defendants have responded to the court’s inquiry about the use of TTY or TTD
devices to allow Alexander to participate in telephonic hearings. Dkt. 257. Defendants say that
the devices are not recommended because they are cumbersome and time consuming. They ask
that the court conduct any future hearings in person, where Alexander would be able to use
real-time transcription in the courtroom. The court is well aware of the shortcomings of TTY
and TTD systems, but in-person hearings with Alexander, even with the benefit of real-time
transcription, are also cumbersome and time consuming. The court will defer decisions about
how to conduct any future hearings until after a decision on summary judgment.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Robert Earl Alexander’s motion to compel, Dkt. 271, is DENIED.
Discovery is STAYED until the court rules on defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.
2. Defendants motion for permission to discard plaintiff’s documents, Dkt. 274, is
DENIED. Defendants may resubmit the motion with proper support.
3. Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing, Dkt. 276, is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or hearing, Dkt. 278 and Dkt.
284, is DENIED.
5. The court will defer a decision on how to conduct future hearings until the court
rules on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Entered October 12, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3