Ajala, Mustafa-El v. Tom, Craig et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting defendants' 50 Motion for Extension of Time; denying plaintiff's 53 Motion for the Court to Decide the Issue of Exhaustion Without a Reply Brief From Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 12/17/2013. (jef),(ps)

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

MUSTAFA-EL K.A. AJALA,
formerly known as DENNIS E. JONES-EL,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-102-bbc
v.
CRAIG TOM and MATTHEW SCULLION,
Defendants.

In this case, plaintiff Mustafa-El K.A. Ajala is proceeding on an excessive force claim
against defendants Craig Tom and Matthew Scullion. On November 14, 2013, defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion grounds. The court initially set a deadline
of December 5, 2013 for plaintiff’s response and December 12, 2013 for defendants’ reply.
Plaintiff responded by filing a motion to amend the briefing schedule to conform with the
preliminary pretrial conference order in this case, dkt. 41, which stated that defendants’ reply
would be due seven days after plaintiff’s response—plaintiff stated that he was going to file his
response much earlier than the December 5 deadline and thought that allowing defendants until
December 12 to reply would lead to undue delay. I granted plaintiff’s motion in a December
2, 2012 text-only order. Dkt. 49.
Plaintiff submitted his summary judgment response on November 26, 2013, which set
the reply deadline at December 3, 2013. Now, defendants have filed a motion for an extension
of the deadline due to counsel’s confusion over the changed deadline, family emergencies and
the Thanksgiving holiday occurring during the seven-day reply period. They followed up with

their reply brief on December 6, 2013. Plaintiff has filed his own motion “for the court to
decide the issue of exhaustion without a reply brief from defendants.” From this filing it appears
that plaintiff had not yet received a copy of defendants reply brief; because they have submitted
that document, I will construe plaintiff’s motion as one to strike the reply brief.
Based on the parties’ filings, there is no good reason to deny defendants’ motion for a
short extension so that the court may consider their December 6 reply. Doing so will not result
in any undue delay to plaintiff and it is reasonable, given the various difficulties cited by
defendants’ counsel. Accordingly, I will grant defendants’ motion for an extension of time and
deny plaintiff’s motion to strike. The court will consider defendants’ reply brief in ruling on
their motion for summary judgment.

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
(1)

Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file their reply
brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, dkt. 50,
is GRANTED.

(2)

Plaintiff Mustafa-El K.A. Ajala’s motion to strike defendants’ reply
brief, dkt. 53, is DENIED.

Entered this 17th day of December, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2