Wilson v. Sabatka-Rine et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Suspend Progression Order Deadlines (filing no. 58 ) is granted. No further pleadings shall be filed without the court's leave. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (filing no. 49 ) is de nied. Plaintiff's Objection to Interrogatories and Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (filing no. 51 ) is granted only to the extent of the voluntary dismissal of certain Defendants, and it is otherwise denied. Plaintiff's claims against De fendants Joe Zarate, Kim Cockrell, Samuel Grove, Damian Hoesing, and Steve Fannon are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the court shall cancel the Final Pretrial Conference in this matter that is currently scheduled for April 25, 2013. A sep arate progression order resetting the date for the Final Pretrial Conference, and all associated deadlines, may be entered after the court resolves the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HAROLD B. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIANE SABATKA-RINE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3215

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Suspend Progression
Order Deadlines. (Filing No. 58.) In the Motion, Defendants ask the court to
suspend the progression order deadlines set forth in the court’s October 10, 2012,
Memorandum and Order, because they have moved for Summary Judgment based on
qualified immunity. (Id.) Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than
merely a defense to liability.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
Accordingly, it is important that the question of qualified immunity be resolved as
early as possible in the proceedings. O’Neil v. City of Iowa City, 496 F.3d 915, 917
(8th Cir. 2007).
Upon review of the pleadings, the court will grant Defendants’ Motion to
Suspend Progression Order Deadlines. No further pleadings shall be filed without the
court’s leave. In addition, the Final Pretrial Conference that has been scheduled for
April 25, 2013, is canceled and Defendants are temporarily relieved from preparing
a draft of a proposed Order on Final Pretrial Conference. A separate progression
order resetting the dates for the Final Pretrial Conference, and all associated
deadlines, may be entered after the court resolves the pending Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (filing no. 49) and Objection
to Interrogatories and Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (filing no. 51). Defendants have

filed a Brief in Response to Plaintiff’s Motions. (Filing No. 53.) In these Motions,
Plaintiff complains that Defendants have not answered his Interrogatories, asks the
court to compel Defendants to answer his Interrogatories, and asks the court to order
Defendants to withdraw their Interrogatories. (Filing Nos. 49 and 51.) In response,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to comply with NECivR 7.1(i), which
provides that this court will only consider a discovery motion in which the moving
party shows that, after personal consultation with opposing parties and sincere
attempts to resolve differences, the parties cannot reach an accord. (Filing No. 53.)
After careful review, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that he
consulted with Defendants’ counsel to resolve any dispute regarding the parties’
Interrogatories. Plaintiff’s discovery requests are therefore denied.
Separately, Plaintiff has moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendants “Joe Zarate,
Kim Cockrell, Samuel Grove, Damian Hoesing[,] and Steve Fannon[,]” because these
Defendants were not “involved at all in the issues before the court.” (Filing No. 51
at CM/ECF p. 2.) Defendants have stipulated to the dismissal of these Defendants.
(Filing No. 53.) Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Suspend Progression Order Deadlines (filing no.
58) is granted. No further pleadings shall be filed without the court’s leave.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (filing no. 49) is deneid.

3.
Plaintiff’s Objection to Interrogatories and Motion to Voluntarily
Dismiss (filing no. 51) is granted only to the extent of the voluntary dismissal of
certain Defendants, and it is otherwise denied.

2

4.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Joe Zarate, Kim Cockrell, Samuel
Grove, Damian Hoesing, and Steve Fannon are dismissed without prejudice.
5.
The Clerk of the court shall cancel the Final Pretrial Conference in this
matter that is currently scheduled for April 25, 2013. A separate progression order
resetting the date for the Final Pretrial Conference, and all associated deadlines, may
be entered after the court resolves the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
DATED this 12th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3