Scheffler v. County of Dunn

Filing 42

ORDER granting 39 Motion for Reconsideration. 37 Motion to strike brief in opposition and for an extension to file a complete brief is granted. Plaintiff has until August 19, 2009 to file his opposition materials in response to defendants motion for summary judgment; defendant has until August 31, 2009 to file its reply to plaintiffs response. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/11/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------T R O Y K. SCHEFFLER, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -6 2 2 - b b c v. C O U N TY OF DUNN, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------O n July 31, 2009, I denied plaintiff's motion to strike his brief in opposition and for an extension to file a complete brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgm ent. Dkt. #38. Some of the reasons for the denial were plaintiff's apparent failure to read and follow the court's procedures regarding motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff h as filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the denial of his motion to strike and for an extension of time. Dkt. #39. In his motion, plaintiff contends that he was utterly confused by the court's pro cedures regarding the response and reply to motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff believed that his response to defendant's motion was merely an opportunity to dispute w hether the case should be considered on a motion for summary judgment as opposed to

1

g o i n g to trial.

He contends that he intended to file a proper and complete brief in

op po sition as a reply brief, which he believed he was entitled to file. Although plaintiff's con fusion regarding the difference between a response and reply brief and who was entitled to file each brief is somewhat puzzling, plaintiff's failure to follow almost all of the court's su m m ary judgment procedures in his opposition brief lends some credence to his confusion. R egardless of plaintiff's confusion, his new motion does not alter the conclusion that plaintiff failed to take care to read this court's summary judgment procedures. Nonetheless, plaintiff says that despite his confusion he needs only one week to prepare and submit a pro per brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment. In light of this pro po sa l, I find that it would be proper to permit plaintiff the opportunity to correctly respo nd to defendant's motion. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's July 31, 2009 order w ill be granted. Further, plaintiff's motion to strike his brief in opposition and for an exten sio n to file a complete brief will be granted. Plaintiff will have until August 19, 2009, to file his opposition materials. Because plaintiff's opposition deadline has been extended, defendant's reply deadline will be extended to August 31, 2009. Finally, I note that

plaintiff's pro se status does not give him the freedom to ignore the court's summary judgm ent procedures. He must adhere to those procedures in the materials he files in op po sition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, so he should read the procedures

2

c lo s e l y .

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, dkt. #39, is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's motion to strike his brief in opposition and for an extension to file a co m plete brief, dkt. #37, is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff has until August 19, 2009 to file his opposition materials in response to defendan t's motion for summary judgment; defendant has until August 31, 2009 to file its reply to plaintiff's response. E n tered this 11 t h day of August, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3