Lawrence, Brian v. Buesgen, Chris et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing this case with prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to close the case. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/8/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

BRIAN A. LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRIS BUESGEN and JEFFREY PUGH,

ORDER
15-cv-230-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Brian Lawrence, a prisoner incarcerated at the Stanley Correctional
Institution, alleges that prison officials failed to protect him from an assault by his cellmate.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that they cannot be found liable
under the Eighth Amendment because they were unaware of the danger to Lawrence before
the assault occurred. Dkt. 17. Lawrence did not timely respond to defendants’ motion, so I
ordered Lawrence to indicate whether he still wishes to prosecute this lawsuit, show cause
why he could not timely respond to defendants’ motion, and submit his belated response to
defendants’ motion. Dkt. 23. I also warned Lawrence that his failure to respond to my order
or defendants’ motion by January 31, 2017, could result in dismissal. Id.
Lawrence has responded to my order. Dkt. 24. Lawrence indicates that he has not
been litigating this case because “Currently my focus is facing a 30 year sentence (7 served)
and fighting a case where I was almost murdered in my sleep.” Dkt. 24. This response may be
a polite way of stating that he no longer wishes to litigate this case or it may be a request for
another extension. Either way, he has not responded as ordered. He still has not filed an
opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment or shown good cause for accepting a
late response. I will dismiss the action for Lawrence’s failure to prosecute it.

Giving Lawrence yet another extension would be unfair to defendants, given that the
trial is scheduled to begin on March 13, 2017. I will not force defendants into a scramble a
month before the trial just because Lawrence decided to prioritize another case over this one.
Because defendants have submitted a fully supported and apparently well-grounded
motion for summary judgment, the dismissal of the case will be with prejudice.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants Chris Buesgen and Jeffery Pugh’s motion for summary judgment,
Dkt. 17, is DENIED as moot.

2.

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3.

The clerk of court is directed to close the case.

Entered February 8, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2