United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DERRICK L. SMITH, Plaintiff,
BRIAN FOSTER, et al., Defendants.
AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE EXCESS PAGES (DKT. NO. 68); DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S
DISPOSITIVE MOTION (DKT. NO. 85); DENYING AS MOOT THE
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 87); AND GRANTING THE
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A COPY OF THE DOCKET (DKT. NO.
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
January 3, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, dkt. no. 68, and a motion for leave to file excess
pages, dkt. no. 69. Six days later, the court entered an
order extending the deadline to March 3, 2017, for the
plaintiff to respond to the defendants' motion for
summary judgment. Dkt. No. 84. That same day, the court
received the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Dkt. No. 85. About ten days after the court received the
plaintiff's motion, the defendants filed a motion to
strike the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Dkt. No.
87. The defendants argued that it wasn't really a
motion-just a statement from the plaintiff that he
doesn't know what a summary judgment motion is.
Id. The following day, the court received a motion
from the plaintiff asking for various clarifications,
explaining problems he was having with obtaining his personal
property, and detailing discovery disputes he has had with
the defendants. Dkt. No. 88. Ultimately, the only relief that
the plaintiff requested was for the court to send him
“a copy of docket entries.” Id.
court will grant the defendants' motion to file pages in
excess of the thirty-page limit set in Civil Local Rule
56(b)(8). Dkt. No. 68. The court reminds the defendants that
they should file such requests prior to filing their
motion, not at the same time. Regardless, given the number of
defendants and claims, the court agrees that the defendants
need additional pages to fully present their arguments.
court will deny as moot the defendants' motion to strike
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 87,
because the court will deny the plaintiff's motion, dkt.
no. 85. The plaintiff addressed this pleading to the court,
and in the “re:” line, indicated,
“Dispositive Motino, #16-cv-84 Federal Lawsuit.”
Dkt. No. 85 at 1. In the first paragraph, the plaintiff
states that he is submitting his pro se
“dispositive motion” for the court to consider.
Id. The plaintiff then says,
But first Smith would like to take this opportunity to again
apologize to this Court for the presentation of this, his
prehistoric condition of the pro se motion he submits. Being
housed at the County Jail has a lot of challenges for him to
overcome, if he is able to overcome them at all. Yet he
ensures this Court that he is doing the best he can with the
very little he has to work with. The Jail will only allow him
to use pen & paper for his legal proceedings.
Smith asserts that due to the Jail's inadequately stocked
Law Library he can find no information on what a dispositive
motion is or how to develop one. Because of that he motion[s]
for this court to preserve his ability/right to submit a
Dispositive Motion and prayfully Discovery requests at a
Smith prays for this Court's understanding and patience
while considering to grant this his pro se dispositive
motion, thank you.
Id. at 1-2.
not, as the defendants point out, a motion for summary
judgment. It is a statement by the plaintiff that he does not
know what a dispositive motion is, and a request that the
court extend the deadline for filing such a motion until he
figures that out.
16, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order setting the
deadline for filing dispositive motions. Dkt. No. 43. In
paragraph 2 of the order, the court defined the term
“dispositive motions.” Id. at 1. It
indicated that dispositive motions were motions to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and motions for
summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Id. The court included with the order copies of
F.R.C.P. 12, F.R.C.P. 56, and the court's local rules
relating to dispositive motions. Id. The defendants
included the same rules in their motion for summary judgment,
which they filed on January 3, 2017. Dkt. No. 69.
court's order set the deadline for filing dispositive
motions for September 16, 2016. Dkt. No. 43 at 1. That gave
the plaintiff four months to look in the library for cases
and other information about motions to dismiss and motions
for summary judgment. At the defendants' request, the
court extended that deadline to October 17, 2016, dkt. no.
46, giving the plaintiff(and the defendants) an additional
month. The court extended the deadline again-this time, to
January 3, 2017-after ruling on the plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 59. The court received the
plaintiff's explanation that he didn't know what a
dispositive motion was on January 9, 2017-six days after the
deadline for filing dispositive motions, and almost eight
months after the court had sent him the scheduling order with
the attached rules. By the time the court received the
plaintiff's (late-filed) motion, he had had almost eight
months to look for cases that described a motion to dismiss,
or a motion for summary judgment, and to decide if the facts
and law in his case warranted him filing either one of those.
court will deny the plaintiff's dispositive motion, dkt.
no. 85, and will not give him additional time to file
another. The court reminds the plaintiff that his response to
the defendants' motion for summary judgment is due on
March 3, 2017.
on January 20, 2017, the court received from the plaintiff a
document entitled “Plaintiff's Notice of Motion
& Motion for a Full Copy of the DOCKET ENTRIES case
#16-cv-84.” Dkt. No. 88. While this document is lengthy
and details many administrative hurdles the plaintiff
believes he is facing, he seems to have included all of that
information for the purpose of putting the court on ...