Kretlow, Bernard v. Dahlstrom et al

Filing 42

ORDER that plaintiff may have until 8/28/2017 to respond whether he wants to prosecute this lawsuit. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/14/2017. (elc),(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 an Eighth Amendment claim
that defendants Dahlstrom and Allen failed to protect him from a risk of violence and a First
Amendment claim that they retaliated against him. On April 14, 2017, defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 23. Kretlow did not respond to defendants’ motion by
the May 15 deadline, but he later filed two documents titled “motion for summary judgment.”
Dkt. 36 and Dkt. 40. Each time, I explained that Kretlow could not move for summary
judgment because he missed the deadline for doing so and that if he intended the documents
to serve as a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, they did not comply with
the court’s pretrial conference order. Dkt. 39 and Dkt. 41. I extended the deadline for Kretlow’s
response brief twice and gave him specific instructions on how to respond to defendants’
summary judgment motion.
The second deadline for Kretlow’s response brief has come and gone with no further
communication from Kretlow. So it is not clear that Kretlow intends to continue with this
lawsuit. And as I previously warned him, Kretlow’s failure to submit proposed findings of fact
opposing defendants’ motion also means that I should consider defendants’ proposed findings
of fact to be undisputed. Dkt. 39, at 2.

Before I dismiss this case with prejudice for Kretlow’s failure to prosecute it, I will give
Kretlow 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, as I instructed him to do in
previous orders.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Bernard Edward Kretlow may have until August 28,
2017, to respond to this order.
Entered August 14, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2