United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DERRICK L. SMITH, Plaintiff,
BRIAN FOSTER, et al., Defendants.
AND ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(DKT. NO. 93), DENYING HIS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(DKT. NO. 107), DENYING HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS
PAGES (DKT. NO. 109), AND DENYING HIS MOTION FOR A 30-DAY
POSTPONEMENT (DKT. NO. 112)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge
The Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time and for
Leave to File Excess Pages
January 3, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 69. After receiving several extensions of
time, the plaintiff filed his response materials on March 20,
2017. Dkt. Nos. 97, 100. On April 3, 2017, the defendants
filed their reply brief in support of their motion for
summary judgment. Dkt. No. 103. They also responded to the
plaintiff's additional proposed findings of fact, which
the plaintiff included with his response
materials. Dkt. No. 104.
April 21, 2017, the plaintiff filed two motions. The first
asked that the court extend the deadline for his response to
the defendants' reply brief. Dkt. No. 107. The second
asked that the court allow him to file a response that
exceeded the page limits in the local rules. Dkt. No. 108.
The court will deny both motions.
L.R. 56 sets out the briefing procedures for a motion for
summary judgment. The rule specifically allows for the filing
of a motion and materials in support of that motion; the
opposing party's materials in opposition to the motion;
and the moving party's materials in reply-a motion, a
response and a reply. Once the moving party files the reply,
briefing is complete and the motion is ready for the
the parties finished briefing the defendants' motion for
summary judgment on April 3, 2017, when the defendants filed
their reply. The rules do not authorize the plaintiff to file
anything else, nor does anything in the plaintiff's most
recent motions suggest that further briefing. The court will
deny the plaintiff's request for additional time to
respond to the defendants' reply materials, and his
request to exceed the page limitations. The defendants'
motion for summary judgment is ready for the court's
decision. The court will not accept any further pleadings
from the parties on this motion.
The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
March 14, 2017, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion for
injunctive relief and restraining order. Dkt. No. 93. The
plaintiff states that his “health, safety, and quality
of life are being abused, under color of law by [Marathon
County] Jail staff.” Dkt. No. 94 at 2. He asks the
court to order that he be transferred to Mendota or Winnebago
Correctional Institutions, that his medical needs be
addressed at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and pain
clinic, that “opposing parties” repair or replace
his laptop and return his legal materials and personal
property, that he be allowed to keep his legal materials in
his cell, and that no Marathon County Jail staff have any
contact with him. Id. at 12-13.
April 4, 2017, the defendants responded to the
plaintiff's motion. They argue that the plaintiff makes
no allegations relating to the underlying lawsuit or against
any of the defendants in the underlying lawsuit. The
allegations in the plaintiff's motion are against
Marathon County Jail staff, who are not parties to this
lawsuit (the plaintiff sued the warden and certain staff
members at Waupun Correctional Institution). The defendants
argue that the court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief
the plaintiff seeks.
April 21, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion asking for
additional time to file a reply brief in support of his
motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 107. He filed a
second motion asking, in part, that the court allow him to
exceed the page limitation for his reply brief. Dkt. No. 109.
court will deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction. The purpose of a preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order is “to preserve the
relative positions of the parties until a trial on
the merits can be held.” University of Texas v.
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981) (emphasis added);
Crue v. Aiken, 137 F.Supp.2d 1076, 1082 (C.D. Ill.
April 6, 2001). A motion for preliminary injunction is not a
proper avenue to pursue additional claims against different
defendants. See Wilson v. Gaetz, Case No. 14-cv-71,
2015WL4999852, at *1-2 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2015) (citing
plaintiff's motion complains about actions by individuals
who are not parties to this lawsuit, which means that the
court does not have jurisdiction over those individuals. In
any event, according to the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections website, the plaintiff recently moved from
Marathon County Jail to Dodge Correctional Institution.
See http://offender.doc.state.wi.us/lop/ (last
visited on April 24, 2017). Given that he is no longer at
Marathon County Jail, his request for relief from the alleged
wrongdoing by individuals at that facility is moot.
the court is denying the plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, it
will also deny as moot the plaintiff's motion for an
extension of time to file a reply brief in support of his