Theus, Jerome v. Racine Correctional et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying (76), (77) Motions for Summary Judgment in case 3:13-cv-00681-bbc; denying (70), (71) Motions for Summary Judgment in case 3:14-cv-00224-bbc. However, I will construe these documents as briefs in opposition to the motion for summary ju dgment filed by defendants Lisa Baker, Lora Blassius, Debbie Nutting, Susan Nygren, Howard, Kemper and Wigand. Plaintiff's additional responsive materials must be filed by 6/22/2015. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/17/2015. Associated Cases: 3:14-cv-00224-bbc, 3:13-cv-00681-bbc (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME THEUS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-cv-224-bbc
v.
LORA BLASSIUS, SUSAN NYGREN
DEBBIE NUTTING and LISA BAKER,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME ANTHONY THEUS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-681-bbc
v.
MS. WIGAND, MR. KEMPER and
MR. HOWARD,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In these consolidated civil actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defendants Lisa Baker,
Lora Blassius, Debbie Nutting, Susan Nygren, Howard, Kemper and Wigand filed a motion
for summary judgment on May 22, 2015. Case no. 13-cv-681-bbc, dkt. #64; case no. 14-cv224-bbc, dkt. #58. In an order entered June 3, 2015, I instructed pro se plaintiff Jerome
Theus that his filing titled “Motion for Summary Judg[]ment,” case no. 13-cv-681-bbc, dkt.

1

#74; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #68, must be denied because it was untimely and failed
to follow this court’s Procedures to be Followed on Motions for Summary Judgment. Case
no. 13-cv-681-bbc, dkt. #75; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #69.
On June 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for Summary Judg[ment].”
Case no. 13-cv-681-bbc, dkt. #76; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #70. On June 10, 2015,
plaintiff filed yet another document titled “Motion for Summary Judg[]ment.” Case no. 13cv-681-bbc, dkt. #77; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #71. Like his previous motion, both of
these motions are untimely. The deadline for filing dispositive motions was May 22, 2015.
Accordingly, they cannot serve as motions for summary judgment. However, it may be that
plaintiff intended the documents to serve as responses to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, so that is how I will construe these filings. I note that they may be construed as
briefs in response to defendants’ motion, but they are insufficient as responses to
defendants’ proposed findings of fact. Such responses must include the proposed findings
of fact to which the party is responding and must state whether the party wishes to dispute
or dispute in part the proposed fact.
If plaintiff did not intend his June 4 and June 10 filings to serve as briefs and he
wishes to file a different brief in response to defendants’ motion or if he wishes to file any
other responsive materials, he has until June 22, 2015 to do so. In particular, plaintiff may
still file responses to defendants’ proposed findings of fact, his own proposed findings of fact
and any additional evidence that supports his claims.
If plaintiff chooses to file any additional materials, he should be sure to title the

2

documents as responsive to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Further, he should
consult the Memorandum to Pro Se Litigants Regarding Summary Judgment Motions and
this court’s Procedures to be Followed on Motions for Summary Judgment, both of which
provide detailed instructions on plaintiff’s obligations in responding to motions for summary
judgment. Case no. 13-cv-681-bbc, dkt. #37; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. #32, at Packet
pp. 2-3, 4-8. The procedures direct plaintiff to respond to each of defendants’ proposed
findings of fact or the fact will be deemed undisputed. They also provide the procedure
plaintiff should follow if he chooses to file his own proposed findings of fact, specifically,
plaintiff’s proposed facts should be in separate, numbered paragraphs and cite evidence in
the record.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jerome Theus’s “motions for summary judgment,”
case no. 13-cv-681-bbc, dkt. ##76, 77; case no. 14-cv-224-bbc, dkt. ##70, 71, are
DENIED. However, I will construe these documents as briefs in opposition to the motion
for summary judgment filed by defendants Lisa Baker, Lora Blassius, Debbie Nutting, Susan
Nygren, Howard, Kemper and Wigand.

Entered this 17th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3