Kretlow, Bernard v. Dahlstrom et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying Plaintiff Bernard Edward Kretlow's 36 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may have until June 30, 2017, to file his complete opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court's procedures on motions for summary judgment included with the pretrial conference order. Dkt. 15 . Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/13/2017. (jef/cc: plaintiff with sj procedures),(ps)

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

BERNARD EDWARD KRETLOW,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. DAHLSTROM and OFFICER ALLEN,

ORDER
15-cv-571-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Bernard Edward Kretlow is proceeding on claims that defendants
Dahlstrom and Allen failed to protect him from a risk of violence under the Eighth Amendment
and retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. On July 20, 2016, Magistrate
Judge Stephen Crocker held a telephone pretrial conference and provided the parties with a
pretrial conference order, including this court’s procedures to be followed on motions for
summary judgment. Dkt. 15.
On April 14, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 23. Kretlow
had until May 15, 2017, to file his response. Instead of responding to the motion as set forth
in this court’s procedures, on June 5, 2017, Kretlow filed a document he calls a “Motion for
Summary Judgment.” Dkt. 36. Unfortunately, the court cannot consider Kretlow’s submission.
As a motion for summary judgment, the motion is untimely. The deadline for filing dispositive
motions was April 14, 2017. Plaintiff missed this deadline by nearly two months. It may be
that Kretlow intended the document to serve as a response to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. However, even if the court construes the submission as a brief in opposition to
defendants’ motion, it does not comply with the court’s pretrial conference order.

I will deny Kretlow’s motion for summary judgment and give him a short time to file a
response to defendants’ summary judgment motion with a response to defendants’ proposed
findings of fact, his own proposed findings of fact, and evidence or exhibits to support his
claims. I will include with this order an additional copy of this court’s procedures to be followed
on motions for summary judgment, which details the requirements Kretlow must follow.
Kretlow should take particular care to respond to defendants’ proposed findings of fact. Any
proposed fact not disputed in whole or in part will be deemed undisputed. Kretlow should
review the example response to proposed findings of fact included in the summary judgment
procedures as a guide in drafting his own responses.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Bernard Edward Kretlow’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 36, is
DENIED. Plaintiff may have until June 30, 2017, to file his complete opposition to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
2. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s procedures on
motions for summary judgment included with the pretrial conference order.
Dkt. 15.
Entered June 13, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2