Pary, Christopher v. McCracken County Jail et al

Filing 125

ORDER that plaintiff Christopher Pary's motion for a stay, dkt. # 124 , is DENIED. Plaintiff shall have until July 31, 2018, in which to advise defendants and the court whether he is requesting voluntary dismissal of this action with or withou t prejudice.Defendants shall have until August 7, 2018 to respond. Briefing on defendant's motion to compel, dkt. # 119 , is STAYED pending resolution of plaintiff's response. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/17/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTOPHER PARY,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
17-cv-37-bbc
v.
TERESA NEHLS, PENNY PERRY and
DR. R. GUPTA,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Christopher Pary is proceeding on a claim under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1974), relating to
allegations that health care providers at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford,
Wisconsin failed to provide him adequate medical care for rectal bleeding, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Defendants have moved to compel discovery. Dkt. #119. However,
in lieu of a response to that motion, which was due July 16, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to
stay his case until January 2021 when he will be out of prison and better able to obtain legal
representation and prosecute his claims. Dkt. #124.
Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Allowing this case to remain open but inactive for
almost three years is not feasible and would be prejudicial to defendants. If plaintiff does not
wish to pursue his case at this time, he may file a motion for voluntary dismissal. However,
when a motion for dismissal is filed after a defendant has filed an answer, as in this case, Fed.
1

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) provides that the action may be dismissed by the plaintiff “only upon
order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” When
the defendants have been required to defend the action, the dismissal usually is “with
prejudice,” which means that plaintiff would be barred from bringing the claim in his current
case in any future action, unless defendants agree to a dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff
may have until July 31, 2018 to advise defendants and the court whether he seeks to dismiss
his case with or without prejudice, and defendants shall have until August 7, 2018 to respond.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Christopher Pary’s motion for a stay, dkt. #124, is
DENIED. Plaintiff shall have until July 31, 2018, in which to advise defendants and the
court whether he is requesting voluntary dismissal of this action with or without prejudice.
Defendants shall have until August 7, 2018 to respond. Briefing on defendant’s motion to
compel, dkt. #119, is STAYED pending resolution of plaintiff’s response.
Entered this 17th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
______________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2