Shaud v. Sugarloaf Township Supervisors et al

Filing 138

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1. Defendant Brown's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135) is GRANTED and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF. 2. The above order renders Defendant Brown's unopposed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 131) moot. Accordingly, it is DENIED. 3. The Clerk is hereby directed to CLOSE the case.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 12/8/11. (jfg)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WALTERSHAUD
Plaintiff

v.

3:07·CV·1212
(JUDGE MARIANI)

SUGARLOAF TOWNSHIP, et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 7,2011, Defendant Tommy Brown, the sole remaining defendant, 1 moved to
Compel Discovery, alleging that Plaintiff had not responded to multiple requests to participate in
the discovery process and schedule a deposition (Doc. 125). Accordingly, on July 14, 2011,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's discovery requests and to submit himself
for a deposition (Doc. 127). However, the Order did not provide a deadline. So, on July 22,
2011 the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's interrogatories by August 3, 2011
and to submit to a deposition within thirty days of submitting his written discovery responses
(Doc. 130). Plaintiff failed to do so. On August 5, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions

1 The original Complaint (Doc. 1) named twelve defendants, including judges, police officers, township officials, the Sugarloaf
Township Fire Department, and Plaintiffs neighbor, Sharon Slusser. Plaintiff claimed that Ms. Slusser and her children routinely
taunted Plaintiff because of his disability, littered on his property, trespassed, and invaded his privacy. The other named
defendants allegedly enabled Ms. Slusser to continue her pattern of behavior against Plaintiff and allowed this harassment as
retaliation for an earlier case in 1997. Judge Munley "screened" this complaint and dismissed all but three defendants (Doc. 13).
Plaintiff then filed his 456-page Final Amended Complaint (Doc. 71-73), in which he named the original twelve defendants
(including the previously dismissed nine) and added an additional twenty-four, totaling thirty-six defendants. Judge Munley again
"screened" the complaint (Doc. 76) and dismissed all but ten defendants, who then filed Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 98, 100, 107).
Judge Munley granted the Motions to Dismiss for nine defendants, leaving only Officer Tommy Brown (Doc. 120). After this
ruling, Plaintiff ceased to respond to all communication from opposing counsel and all Orders of the Court.

(Doc. 131), seeking either dismissal of Plaintiffs case with prejudice or entry of default
judgment against Plaintiff. On August 9, 2011, the Court issued an Order that Plaintiff respond
to Defendant's interrogatories within 10 days of the Order (Doc. 133). Because Plaintiff is pro

se, the Court did not dismiss the case at that time. However, it was the final opportunity for
Plaintiff to comply with the Order. The Court's opinion stated that failure to do so "could cause
the court to dismiss the case." Id. Plaintiff did not respond.
On October 3,2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135). On
November 9,2011, this Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment within 10 days of the Order (Doc. 137). Again, the Court placed Plaintiff on notice
that failure to do so "could cause the court to grant defendant's motion as unopposed." Id.
Plaintiff did not obey the Order.
Conclusion
The Court has given Plaintiff every opportunity to advocate his case. However,
because of Plaintiffs repeated failure to respond to multiple Orders to develop the factual
record, under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2) the Court will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Because this decision renders Defendant's Motion for Sanctions moot, the Court
will deny said motion. An appropriate order follows.

obert D. Mariani
United States District Judge

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WALTER SHAUD

Plaintiff

v.

3:07-CV-1212
(JUDGE MARIANI)

SUGARLOAF TOWNSHIP, et al.,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 8th day of DECEMBER, 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT:
1. Defendant Brown's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135) is GRANTED
and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST
PLAINTIFF.
2. The above order renders Defendant Brown's unopposed Motion for Sanctions (Doc.
131) moot. Accordingly, it is DENIED.
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to CLOSE the case.

Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge