Brown v. Duyoung et al

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/22/2018. 55 Defendant's MOTION to stay dispositive motions deadlines GRANTED; if the court determines plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies, new deadlines will be set. Defendant Jane Doe (Nurse) DISMISSED. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Ennis Lee Brown at Waupun Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
ENNIS LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-1463-pp

RICKY SEABUL,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STAY UPCOMING CASE DEADLINES (DKT. NO. 55)
AND DISMISSING JANE DOE DEFENDANT
______________________________________________________________________________
On December 27, 2017—well ahead of the January 16, 2108 deadline the
court had set for filing dispositive motions—the defendant filed a motion for
summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff had exhausted his
administrative remedies before filing his complaint. Dkt. No. 51. Along with
this motion, the defendant filed a motion asking the court to stay the
originally-set dispositive motions deadlines. Dkt. No. 55. In support of this
motion, the defendant explains that, if the court decides that the plaintiff did
exhaust his administrative remedies, the defendant also plans to file summary
judgment on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims; he would prefer, however, that
the parties not spend time and effort on that endeavor until they know how the
court will rule on the exhaustion question. Dkt. No. 55.
In order to preserve the parties’ resources, the court GRANTS the
defendant’s motion to stay the previously-imposed dispositive motion

1

deadlines. Dkt. No. 55. If the court concludes that the plaintiff did exhaust his
administrative remedies, the court then will set new deadlines for filing
substantive summary judgment motions, and for briefing on those motions.
The court also notes that back in its July 2017 scheduling order, the
court gave the plaintiff a deadline of October 17, 2017 to identify the defendant
he sued as Jane Doe. Dkt. No. 26. The court warned the plaintiff that if he
failed to identify the defendant identified as Jane Doe by that date, the court
might dismiss that party. Dkt. No. 26. The deadline passed over three months
ago, and the plaintiff has not identified the Jane Doe defendant. The court
DISMISSES Jane Doe from the lawsuit.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 22nd day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

2