Lietz v. Dittmann et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 8/15/12 denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 21 Motion to Compel; granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time. Discovery cutoff 10/31/12; Dispositive motions due 12/3/12. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THADDEUS M. LIETZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-CV-0006

MICHAEL DITTMANN, SCOTT ECKSTEIN,
CAPTAIN CHOJNACKI, MS. POWLESS, and
KELLY MUESKE,
Defendants,

ORDER
Now before me are several motions filed by plaintiff.
First, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. However, it was not signed, is not
supported by any admissible evidence, and fails to comply with the local rules regarding
motions for summary judgment. For all of these reasons, this motion will be denied.
Second, plaintiff filed a document captioned as both a motion to compel and a motion
of extension. Again, plaintiff has not signed this document, but I will consider these nondispositive requests on the merits even without a signature.
Plaintiff asks me to compel defendants to respond to his motion for summary
judgment, even though they already have done so. Also, he asks me to accept the
documents that were attached to his amended complaint as discovery or, alternatively, grant
plaintiff an extension of sixty days because he is being held in the Outagamie County Jail
and does not have the money or ability to mail discovery at this time. I will deny plaintiff’s
motion to compel because defendants responded to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
and because I have no role in accepting previously filed documents as discovery responses.
Generally, discovery is conducted by the parties without the involvement of the court.

However, it seems that plaintiff may have discovery responses he needs to send to
defendants but he is unable to do so while incarcerated and is not sure he will be released
before the current August 31 discovery deadline. To that end, I will grant plaintiff’s motion
of extension and provide new deadlines below for the close of discovery and the filing of
dispositive motions. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket #17) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket #21) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion of extension (Docket #21) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all requests for discovery shall be served by a date
sufficiently early so that all discovery is completed no later than Wednesday, October 31,
2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that dispositive motions are to be filed no later than
Monday, December 3, 2012.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of August 2012.
s/ Lynn Adelman
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2