Wood v. Billings et al

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 4/9/2015. 61 Plaintiff's MOTION for Reconsideration DENIED, STAY LIFTED; 62 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 64 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED. Discovery now due 8/3/2015; Dispositive Motions now due 9/4/2015. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Lorenzo Wood at Racine Correctional Institution-with prisoner's Pro Se guide)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LORENZO WOOD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No.

13-CV-281

PATRICIA BILLINGS and SUE NEIL,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
On October 29, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to stay this case until
his release from the hospital following hip replacement surgery. The plaintiff has filed a letter
advising the Court that he can now proceed with his case and requesting that the Court lift the stay
(ECF No. 61). The Court will grant this request.
In his letter, the plaintiff also requests that the Court reconsider its September 8, 2014,
denial of his motion to appoint counsel. The plaintiff does not set forth any arguments in support
of his request, and he also states that a “formal motion for appointment will follow this motion and
letter.” Based on the plaintiff’s failure to include any arguments, the Court will deny his request for
reconsideration and await the plaintiff’s formal motion for appointment of counsel.
On February 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and
supporting brief (ECF Nos. 62-63). He seeks summary judgment based on the complaint allegations.
The plaintiff did not file any evidentiary materials in support of his motion; the complaint is not

verified. In response, the defendants have filed a motion for summary denial of the plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment because it does not comply with Civil Local Rule 56(b)(1)(C) (ECF
No. 64.). Alternatively, the defendants request that the Court order the plaintiff to supplement his
summary judgment with materials required by Local Rule 56(b)(1)(C) and any evidentiary materials,
and allow them to respond within the time lines set by the standard Eastern District briefing
schedule.
A party moving for summary judgment must include “a statement of proposed
material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the
moving party to judgment as a matter of law.” Civil L.R. 56(b)(1)(C) (E.D. Wis.). Not providing
the statement is grounds to deny the motion. Civil L.R 56(b)(1)(C) (E.D. Wis.).
Here, the plaintiff has not submitted a statement of proposed material facts in
compliance with the Local Rules. Therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice the plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Pearle
Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008).
Lastly, the Court will set forth deadlines for the completion of discovery and for filing
dispositive motions. The Court will also send the plaintiff a pro se guide, Answers to Prisoner
Litigants’ Common Questions.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 61) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office lift the stay imposed in this
case on October 29, 2014.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 62) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary denial of
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Scheduling Order be entered as
follows: the deadline for the completion of discovery is August 3, 2015, and the deadline for filing
dispositive motions is September 4, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail the plaintiff a pro se
guide, Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of April, 2015.
SO ORDERED,

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

3