Sundsmo, Leonard v. Calkins, Kevin et al

Filing 161

ORDER that plaintiff Leonard John Sundsmo may have until October 31, 2016, to submit his brief opposing defendant Derek Burch's motion for summary judgment, along with plaintiff's responses to Burch's proposed finding of fact, plaintiff's own proposed findings, and evidentiary materials supporting those findings. (2) Defendant Burch may have until November 10, 2016, to file his reply materials. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 10/6/2016. (jef),(ps)

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

LEONARD JOHN SUNDSMO,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
15-cv-2-slc
DEREK BURCH, MIKE PICHLER,
MARK R. SCHAUF, and RYAN LABROSCIAN,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Leonard John Sundsmo brings this action against municipal and state law
enforcement officials for an allegedly illegal search and arrest of plaintiff in 2014. The court has
received defendant Derek Burch’s motion for summary judgment, dkt. 140, but at the time
defendant filed his summary judgment motion, he did not submit proposed findings of fact as
explained in the pretrial conference order, dkt. 130.

Because of this, the court did not

immediately set briefing on Burch’s summary judgment motion. In the meantime, plaintiff filed
a brief in opposition to Burch’s motion, dkt. 151, and Burch filed a reply brief in support of his
motion for summary judgment, dkt. 152. After receiving Burch’s reply, the clerk’s office
contacted Burch’s counsel, to follow up on whether Burch intended on filing proposed findings
of fact. Counsel confirmed that the proposed findings of fact were inadvertently not filed at the
time Burch filed his motion for summary judgment. Counsel subsequently submitted Burch’s
proposed findings of fact, dkt. 153.
Now that Burch’s summary judgment materials are complete, I will set a new briefing
schedule. The other defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment on September
30, 2016, and briefing has already been set on that motion. The new briefing schedule on
Burch’s motion will track the schedule on the parallel motion.

I warn plaintiff that his summary judgment responses should substantively address the
issues in this case having to do with the search and arrest. Plaintiff’s brief opposing Burch’s
(admittedly incomplete) motion for summary judgment does not address the substance of his
claims. Rather, plaintiff contends that all of Burch’s submissions should be disregarded as failing
to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This is nothing more than a rehash of
plaintiff’s previous attempts to raise long-discredited “sovereign citizen” legal theories about how
to properly file legal documents in federal court. These arguments have no traction in this court
and they are not going to get plaintiff anywhere. Whether he likes it or not, plaintiff needs to
adjust his mind set and his submissions in this lawsuit.

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff Leonard John Sundsmo may have until October 31, 2016,
to submit his brief opposing defendant Derek Burch’s motion for
summary judgment, along with plaintiff’s responses to Burch’s
proposed finding of fact, plaintiff’s own proposed findings, and
evidentiary materials supporting those findings.

(2)

Defendant Burch may have until November 10, 2016, to file his
reply materials.

Entered this 6th day of October, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2