SCHLUETER v. MATNEY et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; denying 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting 34 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time. Dispositive Motions due by 6/5/2018, Discovery due by 5/6/2018.) Signed by Judge William C. Griesbach on 10/6/2017. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

NICHOLAS SCHLUETER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-C-1001

TYSON MATNEY,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT,
DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING MOTION FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Pro se Plaintiff Nicholas Schlueter, currently incarcerated in the Bartholomew County Jail,
was allowed to proceed pro se on his complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on his
claim that three officers/detectives of the Bartholomew County Sheriff’s Department essentially
planted evidence and framed him for a crime he did not commit. Schlueter now seeks to file an
amended complaint adding claims against the City of Columbus and additional employees of both
the Bartholomew County Sheriff’s Department and Columbus Police Department.
This motion is denied. The complaint is entirely conclusory and fails to specify what the
defendants are alleged to have done. There is no respondeat superior under § 1983 and thus a
county or city is not liable simply because of the actions of its employees. The only allegation that
either the county, the city, or any other employees have any knowledge of what was allegedly going
on is entirely conclusory. In other words, Schlueter states no facts from which a reasonable person

could infer that the other parties he seeks to add contributed in any way to the violation of his rights
alleged. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is denied.
Schlueter has also filed a motion for summary judgment, to which he attaches an evidence
receipt and other documents. The motion wholly fails to set out a prima facie case for granting a
motion for summary judgment. Summary Judgment is appropriate when the undisputed facts
establish that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Schlueter’s motion wholly fails
in this regard and, therefore, is denied. No response is required.
Finally, the defendants have moved for an extension of time to complete discovery and file
dispositive motions. They note that the case is relatively recent, no trial date is set, and the plaintiff
is scheduled to go to trial in November on the charges that underlie his allegations in this case.
Under these circumstances, the court concludes that the extension of time should be granted.
Accordingly, discovery is extended to May 6, 2018 and the dispositive motion deadline is set for
June 5, 2018.
SO ORDERED this

6th

day of October, 2017.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge*
United States District Court - WIED

*

Of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
2