Vega v. Thurmer et al

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 5/8/2013. Defendants to serve motion for summary judgment and related documents upon Plaintiff within 3 days of this Order. This action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute effective 6/10/2013 unless prior to that date Plaintiff responds to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Alfredo Vega at Wisconsin Resource Center)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ALFREDO VEGA,
Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No.

11-CV-1046

MICHAEL THURMER, CAPTAIN JOHN O’DONOVAN,
DEPUTY WARDEN DON STRAHOTA, GARY HAMBLIN,
GARY ANKARLO, JEFF GARBELMAN,
DR. DEBORAH FISCHER, and DR. RALPH FROELICH,
Defendants.

ORDER

In an Order entered March 12, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion
for extension of time and directed the plaintiff to file his response to the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment on or before April 12, 2006. To date, the plaintiff has not filed a
response. On April 22, 2013, the defendants filed a letter asking the Court to grant their
motion for summary judgment.
Then, on April 29, 2013, the Court received a letter from plaintiff suggesting
that his legal papers were confiscated and, as a result, he is unable to respond to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Although the plaintiff uses the word confiscated,
he also submitted a letter from the inmate who was assisting him with his legal work that
indicates the materials were mailed to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it appears that the legal

materials were lost in transit rather than confiscated and destroyed, as the plaintiff implies.
The Court is sympathetic to the plaintiff’s lack of legal materials, but can only
go so far to remedy the situation. As a courtesy, the Court will request that the defendants
provide the plaintiff with another copy of their motion for summary judgment and the
supporting materials within three days of this order. The Court also will give the plaintiff
additional time to respond to the defendants’ motion. Nevertheless, this case will be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, effective Monday, June 10, 2013, unless,
prior to that date, the plaintiff files a response to the defendants’ motion. See Civil Local
Rule 41.3 (E.D. Wis.) (copy attached).
IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED that the defendants serve upon the
plaintiff within three days of this order their motion for summary judgment and the related
documents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, effective Monday, June 10, 2013, unless, prior to that date, the plaintiff files
a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of May, 2013.
SO ORDERED,

HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U. S. District Judge

2

Civil L. R. 41(c) Dismissal for Lack of Diligence
(c) Dismissal for Lack of Diligence. Whenever it appears to the Court that the
plaintiff is not diligently prosecuting the action, the Court may enter an order of
dismissal with or without prejudice. Any affected party may petition for reinstatement of
the action within 21 days.

3