Kretlow, Bernard v. Dahlstrom et al

Filing 41

ORDER that Plaintiff Bernard Edward Kretlow may have until July 10, 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 defendants' proposed findings of facts in support of their motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 25 . Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/30/2017. (jef/cc: plaintiff w/ pfof),(ps)

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

BERNARD EDWARD KRETLOW,

v.

Plaintiff,

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 April 14, 2017, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 23. On June 5, 2017, Kretlow filed a document he
calls a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” Dkt. 36. In a June 13, 2017 order, I explained that
Kretlow could not move for summary judgment because he missed the deadline for doing so
and that if Kretlow intended the document to serve as a response to defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, it did not comply with the court’s pretrial conference order. Dkt. 39. I
gave him a deadline of June 30, 2017, to file a response to defendants’ summary judgment
motion and directed him to review the court’s procedures to be followed on motions for
summary judgment.
On June 19, Kretlow filed a document titled “motion for summary judgment.” Dkt. 40.
This document does not comply with the court’s procedures to be followed on motions for
summary judgment. I will allow Kretlow one final opportunity to respond to defendants’
summary judgment motion. In his response, Kretlow should respond to each of defendants’
proposed facts. Dkt. 25. I will include with this order an additional copy of defendants’

proposed facts. Kretlow should number his responses using the same number listed by
defendants. If Kretlow disputes a fact, he should say so, state his version of the fact, and cite
to evidence that supports that version. Kretlow may propose additional facts in a separate
document.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Bernard Edward Kretlow may have until July 10, 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 defendants’ proposed
findings of facts in support of their motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 25.
Entered June 30, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2