Gruber, John et al v. Columbia County et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying plaintiff John Gruber's 29 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/22/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JOHN GRUBER,
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
16-cv-664-bbc
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY,
COLUMBIA COUNTY BOARD AD HOC BUILDING COMMITTEE,
VERN GOVE, KIRK KONKEL, JOSEPH RUF, KRISTA MILLER,
MILLER AND MILLER LLC, JOHN MILLER,
MARK HAZEL BAKER, KASIETA LEGAL GROUP LLC,
CITY OF PORTAGE, CITY OF PORTAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SHAWN MURPHY, KENNETH MANTHEY, KLAUDE THOMPSON,
J.H. FINDORFF AND SONS INC.,
COLUMBIA COUNTY CONDEMNATION COMMITTEE
and TODD BENNETT,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff John Gruber is suing various individuals and entities in Columbia
County, Wisconsin for allegedly violating his property rights under both federal and state
law for being involved in an effort to condemn his property to make way for a new
construction project. The parties are briefing three separate motions to dismiss filed by
different groups of defendants. Dkt. ##5, 8 and 14.
Now plaintiff has filed what he calls a “motion for partial summary judgment.” Dkt.
#29. I am denying this motion for several reasons. First, as a general rule, this court does

1

not entertain motions for summary judgment until after the preliminary pretrial conference,
which is not scheduled until December 20, 2016. Second, plaintiff did not follow the court’s
procedures for filing a motion for summary judgment, which require him to include proposed
findings of fact with his motion, something Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker would have
explained at the preliminary pretrial conference. Third, because defendants’ motions could
resolve the case, it makes no sense to begin briefing a new motion until the court decides
defendants’ motions.
Finally, even if plaintiff had followed the court’s procedures and brought his motion
at the appropriate time, I would deny it because nothing in the motion shows that he is
entitled to judgment on any of his claims. In his three-page brief in support of his motion,
plaintiff fails to develop or support any arguments that any of the defendants have violated
his rights under federal or state law.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff John Gruber’s motion for partial summary judgment,
dkt. #29, is DENIED.
Entered this 22d day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2