Brown, Herman v. Meisner, Michael

Filing 42

ORDER denying plaintiff's 41 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/30/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HERMAN BROWN, JR.,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-cv-171-bbc
v.
CAPTAIN BOODRY, SERGEANT J. KOTTKA,
C.O. BENEVETZ, C.O. JOHNSON and C.O. PARENTEAU,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Herman Brown, Jr., is proceeding on claims that (1) defendants Benevetz,
Johnson, Parenteau, Boodry and Kottka were involved in subjecting plaintiff to an illegal
strip search; (2) defendant Kottka used excessive force against plaintiff; and (3) defendant
Kottka retaliated against plaintiff after learning of this lawsuit. Defendants have responded
to the complaint and a pretrial conference was held on July 17, 2014. Now before the court
is plaintiff’s motion to stay the case. Dkt. #41.
Plaintiff asks to stay the case until he is released from prison in January 2016, when
he says he will be able to retain counsel. Although the court is sympathetic to the challenges
of litigating a case from prison, such a long delay would be unfair to defendants and plaintiff
has not explained why his situation requires a stay. Plaintiff’s lack of legal education is no
different than the many other pro se litigants in this court. Plaintiff says he is “partially
illiterate,” Plt.’s Mot., dkt. #41, at 2, but he does not explain his basis for saying so and his

1

filings in this case have been written in clear and concise language. He also says that he
suffers from “mental illness,” id., but he does not explain what the illness is or why it affects
his ability to litigate this case.

Furthermore, plaintiff’s stay in segregation may pose

difficulties, but he has not identified any that make it impossible or impracticable for him
to prosecute this case. Thus, I am denying plaintiff’s motion.
I remind plaintiff that he is not expected to provide extensive legal research to the court.
His primary role is to present facts and evidence necessary to prove the elements of his claims.
Plaintiff should use the preliminary pretrial conference order as his roadmap in preparing his case
and focus his efforts on gathering the evidence he needs to prove his claims.
Finally, I note that plaintiff is permitted to dismiss his case voluntarily if he believes
he cannot pursue it. Plaintiff may do so at any time with prejudice, which means that he will
not be permitted to assert the claims he stated in this case again. If, however, plaintiff
wishes to dismiss this case without prejudice, which means that he would be able to bring
the same claims in a later action, he will have to file a motion and explain why his request
will not unduly prejudice defendants.

Defendants would be given an opportunity to

stipulate or respond to plaintiff’s motion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Herman Brown, Jr.’s motion to stay this case, dkt.

2

#41, is DENIED.
Entered this 30th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3