Ajala, Mustafa-El v. Swiekatowski, William et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying as moot 50 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 51 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants may have until January 23, 2015 to respond to plaintiff's motion to compel. Plaintiff may have until January 30, 2015, to file a reply. Br iefing on defendants' motion for summary judgment is STAYED pending resolution of plaintiff's motion to compel. Because the motion to compel is stalling the summary judgment motion, the parties should not expect to receive any extensions of time with respect to the motion to compel in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/16/2015. (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,
v.

13-cv-638-bbc

WILLIAM SWIEKATOWSKI, GARY BOUGHTON,
PATRICK BRANDT, MICHAEL DELVAUX
and WILLIAM POLLARD,
Defendants.

In 2007, pro se prisoner Mustafa-El K.A. Ajala was disciplined for various offenses such
as gang activity and conspiring to riot. In this case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff
alleges that those charges were fabricated in order to retaliate against him for filing a grievance
about prison conditions and to discriminate against him on the basis of race and religion. In
addition, plaintiff contends that defendants Michael Delvaux and Patrick Brandt, the hearing
officers at plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing, violated his right to due process because they were
biased against him.
On December 12, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all of
plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. 33. Plaintiff’s opposition brief was due on January 12, 2015.
On January 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a one-page document that he called “Motion to
Compel Discovery, for Appointment of Counsel (for Discovery Purposes Only If Need Be) and
for an Order Staying his Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Their
Compliance with Discovery Demands.”

Dkt. 45.

The document included no argument

supporting the motion, but plaintiff stated that a supporting brief “shall follow by 1 day in the
mail.” Id. Plaintiff did not explain why he did not file the brief on the same day.

On January 8, 2015, defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s motion to compel
because he still had not filed a brief supporting his motion, making it impossible for defendants
to respond. Dkt. 50. On January 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a document that he called “Motion
for an Order Extending Defendants’ Brief in Opposition and His Reply Brief by 7 Days,” dkt.
51, in which he again promised that the court would receive his motion the next day.
Three days later, on January 15, 2015, the court received plaintiff’s supporting brief. The
brief was postmarked January 12, 2015, the day plaintiff’s summary judgment materials were
due. Plaintiff still did not explain why he filed his motion and brief separately, ten days apart.
In the brief, plaintiff argues that he needs the names of various confidential informants
in order to properly respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In particular,
plaintiff says that defendants relied on the testimony of these informants to find him guilty of
misconduct and that he needs to question the informants to establish that defendants fabricated
the informants’ statements in order to cover up defendants’ retaliatory motives. If the court
declines to order defendants to turn over the names, he asks for appointment of counsel in the
alternative.
Because plaintiff has now filed his brief, I am denying as moot defendants’ motion to
strike and plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and I will set a new briefing schedule on
plaintiff’s motion to compel. In the meantime, I will stay briefing on defendants’ motion for
summary judgment pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion to compel.
In the future, plaintiff may not file his motion and brief separately. Doing so serves no
purpose. It only creates uncertainty for defense counsel and the court. In the event that
plaintiff files another motion without supporting argument, the clerk of court is directed to
2

refrain from setting a briefing schedule on the motion until all supporting materials have been
filed.

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
(1)

Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion to compel, dkt. 50, and
plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, dkt. 51, are DENIED as moot.

(2)

Defendants may have until January 23, 2015 to respond to plaintiff’s
motion to compel. Plaintiff may have until January 30, 2015, to file a
reply.

(3)

Briefing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment is STAYED
pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion to compel. Because the motion
to compel is stalling the summary judgment motion, the parties should
not expect to receive any extensions of time with respect to the motion to
compel in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

Entered this 16th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

3