Patterson v. Kintu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Honora Tremaine Patterson, Civ. No. 17-2263 (DSD/BRT) Plaintiff, v. Emmanual Kintu; Nick Dechene; Dan ORDER Meyer; Steve McCarty; John Doe; John Doe; and Tim Demolling, each sued in their personal capacities, Defendants.

Now before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Honora Tremaine Patterson. (Doc. No. 61.) In this motion, Plaintiff complains that prison officials have misplaced his legal mail, and he asks the Court to subpoena the defendants to release his mail to him.

Plaintiff attaches exhibits which demonstrate that he is attempting to resolve this issue through the prison’s internal grievance system. (See Doc. No. 62.) The Court will not intervene in this dispute because Plaintiff has yet to exhaust his administrative remedies.

See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). However, since the information Plaintiff is attempting to recover may be relevant to Defendants’ recently- filed motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 63), the Court will extend the time for Plaintiff to respond to that motion. The Court will also change the trial ready date.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED; 2. Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

No. 63) is due on or before September 14, 2018. Defendants reply is due days following service of Plaintiff’s response; and 3. This case shall be ready for trial as of December 10, 2018.

Dated: July 10, 2018. s/ Becky R. Thorson Becky R. Thorson United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Honora Tremaine Patterson, Civ. No. 17-2263 (DSD/BRT) Plaintiff, v. Emmanual Kintu; Nick Dechene; Dan ORDER Meyer; Steve McCarty; John Doe; John Doe; and Tim Demolling, each sued in their personal capacities, Defendants.

Now before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Honora Tremaine Patterson. (Doc. No. 61.) In this motion, Plaintiff complains that prison officials have misplaced his legal mail, and he asks the Court to subpoena the defendants to release his mail to him.

Plaintiff attaches exhibits which demonstrate that he is attempting to resolve this issue through the prison’s internal grievance system. (See Doc. No. 62.) The Court will not intervene in this dispute because Plaintiff has yet to exhaust his administrative remedies.

See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). However, since the information Plaintiff is attempting to recover may be relevant to Defendants’ recently- filed motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 63), the Court will extend the time for Plaintiff to respond to that motion. The Court will also change the trial ready date.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED; 2. Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

No. 63) is due on or before September 14, 2018. Defendants reply is due days following service of Plaintiff’s response; and 3. This case shall be ready for trial as of December 10, 2018.

Dated: July 10, 2018. s/ Becky R. Thorson Becky R. Thorson United States Magistrate Judge