Johnson v. Baumhardt

E.D. Wisconsin

Johnson v. Baumhardt

DecidedFebruary 2, 2023

Docket2:19-cv-00983

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Baumhardt (Johnson v. Baumhardt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Baumhardt, (E.D. Wis. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DAVINA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 19-CV-983

KAREN BAUMHARDT,

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 9, 2023, pro se plaintiff Davina Johnson filed a motion for leave to make corrections if she needs to on her response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. She also requests the court order that the defendant be restricted from accessing her medical records and prescriptions to conduct medications pass. (ECF No. 72.) Regarding her response materials, the court conducted a cursory review and they appear to be adequate. In other words, it does not appear that an amendment is necessary. If after the defendant files her reply, and Johnson feels that she needs to clarify her response materials, she may file a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. She should attach the sur-reply to her motion for leave. Regarding her request that the court limit the defendant from conducting her medications pass and accessing her medical records and prescriptions, she needs to file a grievance within the institution. The court cannot interfere with the day-to-day operations of a correctional institution. See Scarveu v. Litscher, 434 F.3d 972, 976- 77 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756, 759 (7th Cir. 1985)) ( “Federal judges must always be circumspect in imposing their ideas about civilized and effective prison administration on state prison officials . . .; federal judges know little about the management of prisons, managerial judgment generally are the province of other branches of government than the judicial; and it is unseemly for federal courts to tell a state how to run its prison system.” ). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Johnson’s motion for restrictions and leave to amend (ECF No. 72) are DENIED.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 2nd day of February, 2023.

THE COURT:

NANCY JOSHP United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DAVINA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 19-CV-983

KAREN BAUMHARDT,

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 9, 2023, pro se plaintiff Davina Johnson filed a motion for leave to make corrections if she needs to on her response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. She also requests the court order that the defendant be restricted from accessing her medical records and prescriptions to conduct medications pass. (ECF No. 72.) Regarding her response materials, the court conducted a cursory review and they appear to be adequate. In other words, it does not appear that an amendment is necessary. If after the defendant files her reply, and Johnson feels that she needs to clarify her response materials, she may file a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. She should attach the sur-reply to her motion for leave. Regarding her request that the court limit the defendant from conducting her medications pass and accessing her medical records and prescriptions, she needs to file a grievance within the institution. The court cannot interfere with the day-to-day operations of a correctional institution. See Scarveu v. Litscher, 434 F.3d 972, 976- 77 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756, 759 (7th Cir. 1985)) ( “Federal judges must always be circumspect in imposing their ideas about civilized and effective prison administration on state prison officials . . .; federal judges know little about the management of prisons, managerial judgment generally are the province of other branches of government than the judicial; and it is unseemly for federal courts to tell a state how to run its prison system.” ). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Johnson’s motion for restrictions and leave to amend (ECF No. 72) are DENIED.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 2nd day of February, 2023.

THE COURT:

NANCY JOSHP United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Baumhardt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-baumhardt-wied-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack