Tyler, Matthew v. Wick, Stephanie et al
ORDER denying 6 Motion to Remand; granting 9 Motion to Stay Discovery. Defendants may have until April 28, 2014 to file their motion for judgment on the pleadings or provide good cause for failing to do so. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/31/2014. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MATTHEW TYLER,
STEPHANIE WICK, SANDRA HANSEN,
PETER MARIK, K. MARKS, DAVID H. SCHWARZ,
MARGARET BECKWITH, DEBORAH MCCULLOCH,
ROBERT KNEEPKENS, JEFFREY P. HRUDKA,
MARK SPEES, ALBERT LAVENDER, ERIC SWIATLY,
MIKE LUTZ, VAL LITTY, DONNA HEDRICH,
JAMIE OLSON, STEVE SCHNEIDER
and WILLIAM PARKER,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Matthew Tyler, civilly committed under Wis. Stat. Ch. 980, brought this
action against defendant state officials originally in the Circuit Court for Juneau County,
Wisconsin. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants have violated his rights in
various ways with regard to his transfer to and treatment at state facilities under the United
States and Wisconsin constitutions, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and several different state statutes and
administrative regulations. Defendants removed the case to this court on February 3, 2014.
It is now before the court on plaintiff’s motion to remand the case and defendants’ motion
I am assuming jurisdiction over the case for the purposes of issuing this order.
to stay discovery.
Plaintiff’s motion to remand is difficult to understand: he asks that this court remand
“all State issues barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the Wisconsin Legislature
consented to suit on [plaintiff’s] state claims” and states that it is appropriate for this court
to decline jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed. However,
none of plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed (and I do not read plaintiff’s motion
as a request to dismiss the claims voluntarily). Moreover, the issue of sovereign immunity
on particular claims is one that defendants may raise later in the proceedings; it is not a
reason for plaintiff to seek remand. Defendants have the right to remove this case to this
court on the grounds that plaintiff is alleging various federal claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a),
and the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Accordingly, I will
deny plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court.
Defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery because they plan to file a motion
for judgment on the pleadings based on various immunity grounds. It is often appropriate
to stay discovery until immunity issues are resolved, Landstrom v. Illinois Department of
Children & Family Services, 892 F.2d 670, 674 (7th Cir. 1990), and this is one of those
instances. Neither side will have to conduct any discovery to pursue or defend the motion,
so it makes sense to grant the stay. The stay will not be indefinite. Defendants may have
until April 28, 2014 to file their motion for judgment on the pleadings or provide good cause
for failing to do so. At that point I will determine whether a further stay is appropriate.
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Matthew Tyler’s motion to remand the case to state court, dkt. #6, is
2. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of defendants’ motion
for judgment on the pleadings, dkt. #9, is GRANTED. Defendants may have until April 28,
2014 to file their motion for judgment on the pleadings or provide good cause for failing to
Entered this 31st day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
BARBARA B. CRABB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?