Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tiedeman v. Weber

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division

May 14, 2014

JESSE CLAUDE TIEDEMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS L. WEBER, Director of Prison Operations at South Dakota State Penitentiary; TROY PONTO, Assoc. Warden; CLIFTON FANTROY, Unit Manager; JENNIE PETERSON, Unit Coordinator; HEATHER VELD, Case Manager; LINDA MILLER-HUNHOFF, Mailroom Supervisor; KAYLA STEKELBERG, Unit Coordinator; MIKE HOLMES, License Plates Supervisor; STEVE LINNIWEBER, Corrections Officer; and THOMAS LINNIWEBER, Corrections Officer, Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTIONS

JOHN E. SIMKO, Magistrate Judge.

Pending are Jesse Claude Tiedeman's (1) motion requiring the South Dakota State Penitentiary to provide addresses of former employees (Doc. 24); (2) motion to amend complaint (Doc. 27); and motion to extend time (Doc. 35).

BACKGROUND

1. ADDRESSES OF FOUR UNSERVED DEFENDANTS.

On January 13, 2014, a letter was received from Tiedeman which is considered as amotion to be furnished the addresses of four former employees upon whom Tiedeman wishes to serve a summons. He forwarded ten USM 285 forms to the U.S. Marshal for service of process. Six were served. Four were returned unserved because they no longer work at the South Dakota State Penitentiary.

On March 25, 2014, Tiedeman filed amotion which duplicates his January 13, 2014 request to be provided the addresses of the four unserved defendants so they can be served (Doc. 44). The defendants resist the motion (Doc. 45). The defendant's resist because the motion is untimely. In the interim defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and the defendants were not aware of attempts byTiedeman to get a court order for the addresses of the remaining defendants. Defendants suggest the motion for summary judgment could be decided without serving the four remaining defendants because as a matter oflaw, contrary to Tiedeman's suggestion, there was not a conspiracy to deprive Tiedeman of constitutional rights. Since there was no conspiracy, the four defendants could not be a part of a conspiracy the defense argues. Defendants assert the need to protect the confidentiality of the personal addresses. Defendants propose the addresses could be provided as in Morris v. Barr, 2011 WL 3859711 at *2 (SD Cal), i.e. the last known addresses could be furnished to either the court or to the United States Marshal in a confidential memorandum which should be sealed so that it does not become a public record. Tiedeman has not resisted the suggestion and in his January 13, 2014, letter he himselfproposed keeping the addresses confidential so that even he would not be advised of the addresses.

2. AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT.

On January 17, 2014, Tiedeman filed a document captioned "Motion To Amend Complaint" (Doc. 27). His motion to amend consists of a typed recitation of:

"42 USCA §§ 1985

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror...
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges...

18 USCA §§ 241, 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law..

18 USCA § 285 Taking or using papers relating to claims..."

The motion also includes one affidavit captioned "State of South Dakota, County of Minnehaha, " a letter to Kayla (an employee at the South Dakota State Penitentiary), and a letter to ChiefDeputy Matthew W. Thelen ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.