Riley, Shawn v. Ewing

Filing 58

ORDER denying plaintiff Shawn Riley's Dkt. 57 motion for default judgment, Defendant's motion for a stay of the proceedings, Dkt. 54 , is GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to contact counsel in mid-April 2018 to ensure prompt resumption of the litigation. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/14/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

SHAWN RILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
15-cv-592-jdp

CHAPLAIN EWING,
Defendant.

Pro se prisoner Shawn Riley brings this lawsuit alleging that defendant Chaplain Ewing
denied him accommodations for fasting during the month of Ramadan, in violation of his rights
under the First and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Currently pending are cross-motions for summary
judgment. The trial date is currently set for January 29, 2018.
Counsel for defendant has filed a motion asking for a stay of the schedule because she
“has become unexpectedly unavailable due to medical issues arising in advance of her upcoming
family leave,” originally scheduled for mid-January to mid-April 2018, that “may require
immediate, extended hospitalization with no prior warning.” Dkt. 54 and Dkt. 55. The
Wisconsin DOJ’s Civil Litigation Unit director has submitted a declaration stating that
vacancies in the unit, leave schedules, and increased caseloads make it impossible for other
assistant attorneys general to absorb counsel’s docket. Dkt. 56. The state also notes that this
case involves only claims for past harm, decreasing the need for immediate resolution of the
case.
Riley opposes this request, stating that counsel and the DOJ have not explained the
precise nature of the reason for the leave or any supporting medical evidence. He goes so far to

say that counsel has violated Wisconsin’s Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys against
fraud and deceit because she appears to have been anticipating the January-to-April leave for
some time. He asks for default judgment if the state is not prepared to represent defendant.
Dkt. 57.
I understand Riley’s frustration that counsel’s planned leave appears to have predated
the exigent circumstances behind the current motion for a stay, but the motion is based both
in counsel’s new unexpected unavailability and the DOJ’s recent setbacks in staffing articulated
in Dkt. 56. Defendant’s declarations are sworn under penalty of perjury and I see no reason to
doubt their sincerity. Riley also somewhat morbidly states that if counsel had died instead of
filing a motion for stay, the DOJ would be forced to reassign the case to another DOJ lawyer.
This may be true, but it overlooks that in the event of an attorney’s death or any other type of
departure, the DOJ would likely seek extension of court deadlines while new counsel got up to
speed on counsel’s new docket, and I would likely grant that request. It’s possible the DOJ
could have switched counsel sooner here, but I will not micromanage their case assignments to
shoehorn in the January 29 trial date. I will grant defendant’s motion for a stay. I will direct
the clerk of court to check in with the state in mid-April 2018.
In the meantime, I will take up the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and
issue a ruling on them in an upcoming order. I will not bar Riley from submitting filings during
counsel’s leave, but he should not expect the court or defendant to take any action on new
submissions until counsel returns from leave.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Shawn Riley’s motion for default judgment, Dkt. 57, is DENIED.
2. Defendant’s motion for a stay of the proceedings, Dkt. 54, is GRANTED. The clerk
of court is directed to contact counsel in mid-April 2018 to ensure prompt
resumption of the litigation.
Entered December 14, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3