Crowley, Timothy v. Stun-Tech Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER that Attorney Casper is DISCHARGED, subject to providing a copy of this order to plaintiff. Plaintiff shall have until December 20, 2017, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed in its entirety. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/20/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TIMOTHY CROWLEY,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
15-cv-006-wmc
STUN-TECH INC., KARBON ARMS,
STINGER SYSTEMS, INC., ELECTRONIC
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
R.A.C.C. INDUSTRIES INC.,
CCI PRISON FACILITY
Defendants.
The court is in receipt of counsel’s letter providing an update on the results of his
investigation into the manufacturer of the stun system that shocked plaintiff, which the
court assumes was also provided to plaintiff. (Dkt. #32.) Based on counsel’s conclusion
that there is no defendant from whom plaintiff can practically recover monetary damages,
even assuming liability, the court deems counsel’s limited obligation to assist plaintiff in
drafting an amended complaint discharged.

(See Dkt. #26.)

Although probably

unnecessary given the limitations of the original engagement, the court will also construe
counsel’s request as a motion to withdraw, which is GRANTED, except that counsel is to
provide a copy of this order to plaintiff.
Because recovery for plaintiff from this suit appears unlikely, and there is currently
no remaining defendant for whom service can be accomplished, it is unclear on what basis
plaintiff could continue. However, that is for plaintiff to assess. Accordingly, plaintiff -himself, not through counsel -- shall have until December 20, 2017, to explain to the court
whether he is willing to consent to dismissal of the remainder of his case, and if not, on

what basis he should be allowed to proceed and against what defendant. A failure to
respond, or providing a response that offers an insufficient factual or legal basis to proceed,
will likely result in dismissal of this case without prejudice to refiling, understanding that
the statute of limitations may bar a later-filed lawsuit. The court recognizes that this is
not the result plaintiff sought, but unfortunately not all injuries have a meaningful remedy.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Attorney Casper is DISCHARGED, subject to the above.
2) Plaintiff shall have until December 20, 2017, to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed in its entirety.
Entered this 20th day of November, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2