Shaw v. Mc Queeny

Filing 116

ORDER signed by Judge William C. Griesbach on 4/26/2021. Plaintiff's 102 motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Discovery still closes on 4/26/2021, but the dispositive motions deadline is extended to 7/26/2021. Plaintiff's 111 mo tion to withdraw his motion to stay the case is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 107 112 motions to amend/correct the complaint are DENIED. The Court CERTIFIES that Shaw's appeals are frivolous because he is attempting to appeal non-appealable orders. Shaw is WARNED that wasting scarce judicial resources by making repetitive and meritless filings may result in sanctions including dismissal of the case. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIAM ROBERT SHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 20-C-483

ROBERT MCQUEENEY,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff William Robert Shaw, who is representing himself, is proceeding with a claim
that Defendant Dr. Robert McQueeney violated his civil rights by repeatedly failing to treat his
symptoms of withdrawal at the Milwaukee County Jail. Dkt. No. 7. Discovery closes April 26,
2021; and dispositive motions are due May 26, 2021. Dkt. No. 51. This matter comes before the
Court on five pending motions: (1) Shaw’s motion for extension of time; (2) Shaw’s motion to
stay the case pending his appeal; (3) Shaw’s second motion to amend/correct the complaint; (4)
Shaw’s motion to withdraw his motion to stay the case pending his appeal; and (5) Shaw’s third
motion to amend/correct the complaint. Dkt. Nos. 102-03, 107, and 111-12.
a. Shaw’s Motion to Stay the Case Pending Appeal and Subsequent Motion to
Withdraw
On April 5, 2021, Shaw filed a motion to stay this case pending his appeal. Dkt. No. 103.
He explained that he filed two notices of appeal in this case. Id. Ten days later, on April 15, 2021,
Shaw filed a motion to withdraw his motion to stay. Dkt. No. 111. He states that he is a “layman”
and did not know that he could not appeal a case until it was completely resolved. Id.

A notice of appeal normally deprives the district court of jurisdiction over the issues
presented on the appeal. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n v. Am. Express Co., 467 F.3d 634, 637
(7th Cir. 2006) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). But
there is an exception to the rule for frivolous or baseless appeals. Id. (citing Apostol v. Gallion,
870 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989)). The rule “does not operate . . . where there is a purported appeal
from a nonappealable order.” United States v. Bastanipour, 697 F.2d 170, 173 (7th Cir. 1982).
Indeed, when a notice of appeal is a frivolous effort to block the normal progress of litigation, the
district judge “may certify to the court of appeals that the appeal is frivolous” and continue with
the case. Apostol, 870 F.2d at 1339; see also Peters v. Baldwin, No. 17-CV-499-NJR-DGW, 2018
WL 10688328, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2018). As the Court already explained in a prior order, Shaw
seeks to appeal non-appealable orders. See Dkt. No. 100 at 2-3. As a result, the Court will certify
that his appeals are frivolous and will continue with the case.
The Court will also grant Shaw’s motion to withdraw his motion to stay. The clerk’s office
shall terminate both motions.
b. Shaw’s Motion for Extension of Time
Shaw asks the Court to extend the discovery deadline by four months, from April 26, 2021,
to August 20, 2021. Dkt. No. 102. He states that he recently received about 3,000 pages of medical
records and needs time to identify relevant documents and/or determine if the records are
“complete.” Id. Shaw also states that he is waiting on the Milwaukee County Jail (who is not a
defendant in this case) to give him copies of his inmate grievances from 2017 to present. Id. He
states that he filed the grievances, so he “is aware of the voluminous amount of grievances.” Id.
The defendant opposes the motion and asks the Court to keep intact the current scheduling
order. Dkt. No. 105 at 3-4. The defendant states that he has responded to all of Shaw’s discovery

2

requests in good faith. Id. He notes that he has been “inundated, literally inundated, with discovery
demands, motions, appeals, and demands of all sorts while defending this action.” Id.
The Court will extend the dispositive motions deadline rather than the discovery deadline.
This will give Shaw additional time to review the documents he received and/or wait for more
documents from the jail while simultaneously addressing the defendant’s concern that there be a
reasonable stopping point for discovery. The Court notes that Shaw had more than enough time
serve his discovery requests. Thus, if he wanted to make sure that what he received “complete”
discovery responses, he should have served his requests sooner to allow himself time to make
follow up requests.
c. Shaw’s Motions to Amend/Correct the Complaint
On April 12, 2021, Shaw filed his second motion to amend the complaint. Dkt. No. 107.
As with his first motion to amend the complaint, he asks to add as defendants to the case the
Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund and a variety of insurance
companies. Id. Three days later, on April 15, 2021, Shaw filed his third motion to amend the
complaint. Dkt. No. 112. Again, he asks to add “liability insurance companies” as defendants to
the case. Id.
As the Court already explained in a prior order, Shaw cannot sue the Wisconsin Injured
Patients and Families Compensation Fund or any insurance companies in this case because he does
not have any state law claims. See Dkt. No. 73. The Court also will not allow any other
amendments at this stage of the litigation, as it will only needlessly delay this case. Toward that
end, the Court must address Shaw’s litigation tactics and filing practices. His repetitive and
cumulative motions are an abuse to the defendant, this Court, and the judicial process as a whole.

See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (“Every paper filed with [a court], no matter how

3

repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the
Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests
of justice. The continual processing of petitioner’s frivolous requests for extraordinary writs does
not promote that end.”). The Court also has the inherent power to sanction litigants who engage
in harassing, frivolous, or abusive conduct. See Support Sys. Int’l v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th
Cir. 1995). This order constitutes the final warning before the Court contemplates limiting Shaw’s
pro se filings in this case, as well as his other cases. The Court, at its discretion, may also impose
other penalties. See Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315 (7th Cir. 1997).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt.
No. 102) is GRANTED. Discovery still closes on April 26, 2021, but the dispositive motions
deadline is extended to July 26, 2021.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his motion to stay
the case (Dkt. No. 111) is GRANTED. The clerk’s office is directed to terminate both motions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motions to amend/correct the complaint
(Dkt. Nos. 107 and 112) are DENIED.
The Court CERTIFIES that Shaw’s appeals are frivolous because he is attempting to
appeal non-appealable orders.
Shaw is WARNED that wasting scarce judicial resources by making repetitive and
meritless filings may result in sanctions including dismissal of the case.
Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 26th day of April, 2021.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge

4