Hooper, Charles v. Kettle Moraine Correctional Center et al

Filing 22

ORDER resetting the telephonic scheduling conference to Friday, June 10, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. If plaintiff misses this second telephonic conference, the court will conclude that plaintiff no longer is interested in pursuing this lawsuit, and the court will dismiss this case for plaintiff's failure to prosecute it. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/20/2011. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHARLES WILLIAM HOOPER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER
11-cv-11-slc

OFFICER MYERS,
Defendant.

On February 23, 2011 this court granted plaintiff Charles Hooper leave to proceed
against defendant Myers in this conditions of confinement lawsuit. Defendant answered on
April 1, 2011, and on April 4, 2011, this court announced that it would hold a telephonic
scheduling conference on May 20, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., and provided a telephone number for
plaintiff to call. The court mailed this notice to plaintiff at the address he provided to the court:
11403 S. Hermosa, Chicago, IL 60643.
On May 20, 2011, plaintiff did not call in to the court to participate in a scheduling
conference. The assistant attorney general who is representing defendant had not heard from
plaintiff either. Neither the court nor the assistant attorney general had a telephone number for
plaintiff at which we could try to call him to find out why he had not participated in the
scheduling conference.
To be fair to plaintiff, I will reset the telephonic scheduling conference for three weeks
out, that is, Friday, June 10, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff should call into the court at that time,
608-264-5153. If it is impossible for plaintiff to call the court on this date at this time, then it
is plaintiff’s responsibility to let the court note this before June 10, because if he misses this
second telephonic scheduling conference, the court will conclude that plaintiff no longer is
interested in pursuing this lawsuit, and the court will dismiss this case for plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute it.

Also, for informational purposes, I am providing plaintiff with an update on his lawsuit
against the Juneau County Jail, Case No. 10-cv-743. Although the computer assigned this case
to me, another judge has to handle it until the parties consent to have me handle the case,
(something that plaintiff already has done in this case against Officer Myers). That means that
right now, I cannot issue a leave-to-proceed order in the Juneau County case. If plaintiff sends
in a consent form, or just sends in a letter saying he consents to Judge Crocker’s jurisdiction in
Case No. 10-cv-743, then I can quickly issue a leave to proceed order. Otherwise, plaintiff will
have to wait until the other judge has time to look at that case.

Entered this 20th day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2