Blanck, Walter v. Mil. FBI et al

Filing 107

ORDER Granting plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order in case 13-cv-193-jdp. The expert and dispositive motions deadlines in the '193 case are stricken. Counsel for plaintiff in the '193 case may have until April 28, 2017 to inform the court whether he will be representing plaintiff in case 14-cv-135-jdp. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 4/14/2017. (elc),(ps)

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

WALTER BLANCK,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
13-cv-193-jdp
WARDEN BAENEN, DR. SUMNICHT,
NURSE LEMON, SGT. LAUFENBERG,
SUPERVISOR BEVERLY, and
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCDONALD,
Defendants.

WALTER BLANCK,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
14-cv-135-jdp
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VERDEGEN,
Defendants.

Recruited counsel for plaintiff Walter Blanck’s medical care case, no. 13-cv-193-jdp,1
states that he has not obtained expert testimony by the current March 3 deadline, but that he
and the state jointly request a conference to set a new schedule. Dkt. 105 in the ’193 case.
Counsel has also been hashing out possible limited terms of representation with Blanck on his
assault case, no. 14-cv-135-jdp, at which point counsel would seek to consolidate the cases.
Blanck himself has submitted a letter to counsel and the court perhaps suggesting that he has
agreed to counsel’s offer. Dkt. 47 in the ’135 case.
I will give counsel a short time to confirm the status of his representation in the ’135
case. If counsel seeks consolidation, there is no point in holding a scheduling conference until

1

Counsel appears to have transposed the two case numbers in his letter. Our docket shows that
counsel represents Blanck on the ’193 case at present, not the ’135 case, as suggested in the letter.

we know the status of the ’135 case. The expert and dispositive-motions deadlines in the ’193
case will be stricken, but these cases need to start moving forward. A new scheduling conference
(or conferences, if counsel is not onboard the ’135 case) will be held after the representation
issue has been settled.
A copy of this order will be going directly to Blanck because he is currently unrepresented
in the ’135 case. He should be aware that, as previously discussed by this court, he can either
agree to the terms of representation offered by counsel on the ’135 case, or he will have to
represent himself in that case.

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order in case no. 13-cv-193-jdp
(dkt. 105) is GRANTED.

(2)

Counsel for plaintiff in the ’193 case may have until April 28, 2017, to
inform the court whether he will be representing plaintiff in case no. 14cv-135-jdp.

Entered this 14th day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2