Rodriquez, Jesus v. Fritz, Debbier et al

Filing 24

ORDER that plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez may have until May 1, 2017, to respond to this order. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/17/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

JESUS RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DEBBIE FRITZ, KRISTEN ASHCHENBRENNER, and
BEVERLY DILLION,

15-cv-255-jdp

Defendants.
On May 9, 2016, I granted pro se plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez leave to proceed on a
Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against defendants Debbie Fritz,
Kristen Ashchenbrenner, and Beverly Dillion. Dkt. 9. Rodriguez alleges that defendants—his
parole officers and their supervisor—incorrectly placed him on sex offender supervision, in
violation of his due process rights.
On March 3, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that
Rodriguez cannot prevail because he should have brought his claims via a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, his claims are time barred, and, regardless, he received all the process he
was due. Dkt. 18 and Dkt. 19. Rodriguez’s response to defendants’ motion was due April 3,
but he did not file anything. So is not clear that Rodriguez intends to continue with this
lawsuit. Rodriguez’s failure to submit proposed findings of fact opposing defendants’ motion
also means that, under this court’s summary judgment procedures, I should consider
defendants’ proposed findings of fact to be undisputed. Dkt. 17, at 15 (“The court will
conclude that a proposed fact is undisputed unless the responding party explicitly disputes it
and either identifies contradictory evidence in the record, or demonstrates that the
proponent of the fact does not have admissible evidence to support it.”), 19 (“NOTE WELL:

If a party fails to respond to a fact proposed by the opposing party, the court will accept the
opposing party’s proposed fact as undisputed.”).
Before I dismiss this case with prejudice for Rodriguez’s failure to prosecute it or deem
defendants’ proposed findings of fact undisputed for Rodriguez’s failure to comply with the
court’s summary judgment procedures, I will give Rodriguez an opportunity to explain
whether he still wants to prosecute this lawsuit. If he does, he will have to both (1) show
cause why he was not able to submit a timely response to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment; and (2) submit a response brief, proposed findings of fact, and supporting evidence
opposing defendants’ motion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez may have until May 1, 2017, to
respond to this order.
Entered April 17, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2