Schlemm, David v. Frank, Matthew et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Stay of Proceedings and Remand of or Leave to Voluntarily Withdraw State Law Claims; denying 62 Motion for Extension of Time. If Schlemm does not file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment within fourteen days from the date of this order, his federal claimswill be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b). No extension of this deadline will be granted. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/4/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DAVID A SCHLEMM,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11-cv-2 72-wmc
MATTHEW J. FRANK, EDWARD WALL,
and PHIL KINGSTON,
Defendants.

State inmate David A Schlemm filed this civil action against prison officials
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After screening the complaint as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § l 915A, the court granted Schlemm leave to proceed
with claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"),
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l, and the Free Exercise Clause found in the First Amendment. In
October 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. To date, Schlemm
has not filed a response and his extended deadline to do so has expired.

Instead,

Schlemm has filed a motion to stay these proceedings and to remand his "state law
claims" to state court. (Dkt. # 61). Alternatively, Schlemm requests leave to withdraw
or voluntarily dismiss without prejudice his claims under state law. (Id.)
The first motion reflects Schlemm's basic confusion about the scope of this federal
lawsuit. Schlemm did not raise any state law claims in his complaint, nor was he granted
leave to proceed with claims other than those arising under the RLUIPA and the First
Amendment Free Exercise Clause. (See Dkts. # 1, # 3). Accordingly, his motion to stay
this case for the purpose of pursuing claims in state court will be denied. To the extent

that Schlemm has any independent state Jaw claims, this order is without prejudice to his
pursuing them in state court.
As for Schlemm's other motion seeking an open-ended extension of time to

respond to the pending motion for summary judgment and to amend his complaint (dkt.
# 62), the court has already granted Schlemm more than one extension of time to

respond to the defendants' summary-judgment motion, which has been pending for
nearly five months. He has not submitted a proposed amended complaint or provided a
valid reason to amend the complaint at this late date and he alleges no cause for his
lengthy delay. Accordingly, his request for another extension of time will be denied. If
Schlemm does not respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment within
fourteen ( 14) days from the date of this order, his claims for relief under federal Jaw will
be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion by plaintiff David A Schlemm to stay proceedings (dkt. # 61) is

DENIED and remand or voluntarily withdraw state law claims is DENIED.
2. Schlemm's motion for an extension of time (dkt. # 62) is DENIED.
If Schlemm does not file a response to defendants' motion for summary

judgment within fourteen days from the date of this order, his federal claims

2

will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b).
extension of this deadline will be granted.
Entered this 4th day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/

WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3

No