Barnes v. Brown County et al

Filing 207

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 7/7/2015. 185 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to Include Exhibits (ECF Nos. 92, 32) as Attachments to Amended Complaint GRANTED. 189 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time GRANTED. 193 Plaintif f's MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond/Continuance to File Motion to Compel/Extension of Dispositive Motion Deadline GRANTED. 123 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment DENIED without prejudice. Defendant Investigator Bradbeck to be correctly named as Brad Brodbeck. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Lamon Barnes at Fox Lake Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LAMON LAMAR BARNES,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-CV-607

BROWN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to include exhibits
identifying John and Jane Doe defendants (ECF Nos. 92 and 32) as
attachments to the June 19, 2015, amended complaint.

Upon due

consideration, this request will be granted.
Next, the plaintiff has filed a motion to extend time to file his motion
to compel beyond the June 22, 2015, deadline (ECF No. 189). He asserts
that he placed his motion to compel and supporting materials in the prison
mailbox on June 19, 2015, but the documents were not mailed out that day
because the institution scale was broken. The plaintiff’s motion to compel
was filed on June 24, 2015, two days beyond the deadline. The Court will
grant the plaintiff’s motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); see also Edwards v.
United States, 266 F.3d 756, 758 (7th Cir. 2001) (applying the “mailbox
rule,” papers filed by a prisoner are deemed filed on the date they are given

to prison authorities for mailing).
The plaintiff has filed a supplemental motion for continuance to file
motion to compel, extension of summary judgment deadline, and extension
of time to respond to dispositive motion (ECF No. 193). By this motion, the
plaintiff provides additional support for his motion for extension of time to
file his motion to compel. He also requests additional time to respond to
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to file his own
dispositive motion. The Court will grant this motion as set forth below.
Here, the defendants filed their joint motion for summary judgment
on December 8, 2014.1 The plaintiff has not yet responded to this motion.
He recently, with leave of the Court, filed a motion to compel discovery.2
Also, on June 19, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint identifying
the three Doe defendants: DTF Investigator Scanlan, DTF Investigator
Brodbeck, and Mary Lynn Young. Two of these defendants, Brodbeck and
Young, have been served and answered the amended complaint; the third
former Doe defendant, Scanlan, has not yet been served. Finally, on June

There are three sets of defendants (Brown County defendants, City of Green
Bay defendants, Village of Ashwaubenon defendants) represented by different
attorneys.
1

The Court will address the plaintiff’s motion to compel, which is not yet fully
briefed, in subsequent order.
2

-2-

5, 2015, the Court ordered the United States Marshals Service to locate
and serve defendant JuJuan Jones by July 6, 2015.
Based on the above-noted factors, i.e., the fact that most of the
defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment while four of the
defendants have not yet been served and the fact that there are three sets
of defendants represented by different attorneys, this case is procedurally
complicated. In order to simplify this case as much as possible, and to put
the case back on a single litigation track as to all defendants, the Court
will deny without prejudice the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
at this time.3 Once all of the defendants have been served and answered
the amended complaint, the Court will enter an Amended Scheduling
Order and allow the parties to conduct discovery, limited to the new
defendants. The Amended Scheduling Order will also set one deadline for
filing dispositive motions which will apply to all defendants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the plaintiff’s motion for leave to include
exhibits, ECF Nos. 92 and 32, as attachments to the amended complaint

The defendants are advised that when they file their amended motion for
summary judgment, they may refer to materials from their original motion, without
refiling the materials with the Court. They should mail the materials to the plaintiff,
however.
3

-3-

(ECF No. 185) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time (ECF No. 189) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for
continuance to file motion to compel, extension of dispositive motion
deadline, and extension of time to respond (ECF No. 193) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 123) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Once all of the defendants have been served and answered the amended
complaint, the Court will enter an Amended Scheduling Order and allow
the parties to conduct discovery, limited to the new defendants.

The

Amended Scheduling Order will also set one deadline for filing dispositive
motions which will apply to all defendants.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

defendant

Investigator

Bradbeck should be correctly named as Brad Brodbeck.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 7th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

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

-4-