Goodvine v. Vandewalle et al

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/27/2017 GRANTING 74 Defendants' Motion to Stay Deadlines; discovery and dispositive motions deadlines STAYED; briefing of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction STAYED. Defendants to inform the court of Judge Conley's decision on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction within 14 days of receiving decision; defendants to identify and respond to any issues raised in plaintiff's pending motion in this court that are no t addressed in Judge Conley's decision. By 8/25/2017, plaintiff to respond to 70 defendants' motion to dismiss as a sanction; defendants may reply by 9/11/2017. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Christopher Goodvine at Green Bay Correctional Facility) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER GOODVINE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-890-pp

BRETT VANDEWALLE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY DEADLINES (DKT. NO. 74)
______________________________________________________________________________
On July 12, 2017, the court ordered the defendants to respond to the
plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and it set deadlines for discovery
and the filing of dispositive motions. Dkt. No. 68. About two weeks later, the
defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case as a sanction,
based on their assertions that the plaintiff had tricked one of the defendants
into signing a fabricated declaration that the plaintiff then filed in support of
his complaint. Dkt. No. 70, 71.
The next day, on July 25, 2017, the defendants filed a motion asking the
court to stay all deadlines pending the court’s decision on the defendants’
motion for dismissal. Dkt. No. 74. The defendants explained that the plaintiff
filed a case in the Western District of Wisconsin (Case No. 16-703) with claims
that substantially overlap the claims pending in this case. Id. The plaintiff also
filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in the Western District case,
which has been briefed. Id. District Judge William M. Conley is assigned to the
1

Western District case, and held a hearing on July 21, 2017; he scheduled a
follow-up hearing for July 26, 2017. Id.
The court has reviewed the orders and filings in the Western District case
and agrees with the defendants that much of the relief the plaintiff seeks in his
motion pending in this court may be addressed by a decision from Judge
Conley on the motion pending in the Western District. While the two motions
are not identical, the most pressing needs in the plaintiff’s motion (e.g., his
mental health treatment, the denial of his mail, and the restriction of his ability
to communicate with the court) likely will be addressed by Judge Conley. The
court agrees that it is appropriate to stay the briefing of the plaintiff’s motion
until after Judge Conley enters an order on the motion pending in the Western
District.
The court will order the defendants to inform this court when Judge
Conley has entered his decision, and then will require them to respond to any
issues in the plaintiff’s motion pending in this court are not addressed by
Judge Conley’s decision.
In addition, in light of the defendants’ motion to dismiss as a sanction,
the court agrees that it is appropriate to stay the discovery and dispositive
motion deadlines until after the court has an opportunity to rule on that
motion. The plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ motion is due August 25,
2017. If the defendants would like to file a reply in support of their motion,
they must do so by September 11, 2017.

2

The court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to stay deadlines (Dkt. No.
74). The court STAYS the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. The
court also STAYS the briefing of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction.
The court ORDERS the defendants to inform the court of Judge Conley’s
decision on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction within fourteen
days of receiving the decision. The court ORDERS the defendants to identify
and respond to any issues raised in the plaintiff’s motion pending in this court
that are not addressed by Judge Conley’s decision.
Finally, the court ORDERS the plaintiff to respond to the defendants’
motion to dismiss as a sanction (Dkt. No. 70) by August 25, 2017. If the
defendants would like to file a reply, they must do so by September 11, 2017.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 27th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3