Pressley v. City of South Milwaukee
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN D. PRESSLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE, and JASON WALKER, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-148-pp |
| Decision Date | 23 August 2022 |
CHRISTIAN D. PRESSLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE, and JASON WALKER, Defendants.
No. 21-cv-148-pp
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
August 23, 2022
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NOS. 32, 49), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DELAYED RESPONSES (DKT. NO. 37), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DKT. NO. 40), DENYING DEFENDANTS' RULE 7(H) EXPEDITED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO DKT. NO. 42 (DKT. NO. 48), DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE (DKT. NO. 51), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 56), DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 23) AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO IDENTIFY MISSING DISCOVERY
HON. PAMELA PEPPER Chief United States District Judge
I. Procedural History
On January 19, 2021,[1] the plaintiff, who is representing himself, filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court a document titled “Intentional Tort Complaint
and Discovery Demand,” alleging that the South Milwaukee Police Department investigated and arrested him based on false allegations by Robyn Polak of sexual assault. Dkt. No. 1-2. The plaintiff alleged that he had spent two and a half days in the Milwaukee County Jail even though the district attorney allegedly notified the City of South Milwaukee that he would not pursue the charges. Id. at ¶27. The first page of the complaint alleged “slander, defamation, libel, false imprisonment, obstruction, false arrest and civil rights violations in contradiction to the United States Constitutional Amendments 4 and 14 in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and discrimination based on gender.” Id. at page 1. According to the plaintiff, officers had discovered-prior to arresting him-evidence that Polak had fabricated her claims “and was giving and receiving affectionate contact freely with Pressley the night of the incident.” Id. at ¶18. The plaintiff alleged that the City of South Milwaukee and individual defendant Jason Walker had threatened to arrest him if he “were to inquire by phone the status of his criminal complaint that he filed in person against Robyn Polak for having made the false allegations of sexual assault.” Id. at ¶28.
On February 8, 2021, the defendants filed a notice of removal with this court. Dkt. No. 1. They answered the complaint the same day. Dkt. No. 4. The parties filed a Rule 26(f) plan on March 2, 2021. Dkt. No. 11. On March 3, 2021, the court entered a scheduling order, setting a deadline of May 3, 2021 by which to amend the pleadings, a deadline of November 30, 2021 by which to complete discovery and a dispositive motion deadline of November 5, 2021.
Dkt. No. 12. Notably, the parties asked the court to set the dispositive motions deadline over three weeks before the deadline for completing discovery. The court did so.
Five weeks after the court entered the scheduling order, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to compel discovery, to impose sanctions and to extend the deadline for completing discovery. Dkt. No. 15. The defendants responded. Dkt. Nos. 16, 17. The plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his motion until November 10, 2021-seven months later. Dkt. No. 28. On October 20, 2021, however-five months after the defendants responded to his first motion-the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to stay discovery “and timeline.” Dkt. No. 19. The defendants opposed the motion, dkt. no. 20, and the plaintiff did not reply.
The day after they opposed the motion to stay, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment; they filed the motion on the November 5, 2021 deadline for filing dispositive motions that the court had set in the March 2021 scheduling order (as noted, a deadline over three weeks prior to the expiration of discovery). Dkt. No. 23. Two weeks after the defendants filed the motion, the court received from the plaintiff a motion for leave to amend the complaint, as well as a proposed amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 32, 32-1. The original complaint was eight pages long, named two defendants and purported to allege twenty-five claims (though several were simply assertions of fact), dkt. no. 1-2;
the proposed amended complaint was nineteen pages long,[2] named twelve defendants and purported to raise twenty-five claims, dkt. no. 32-1. The same day, the court received from the plaintiff his brief in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 34. The defendants filed a reply brief, dkt. no. 35, which meant that as of December 1, 2021, the motion for summary judgment on the original complaint had been fully briefed, and there was a pending motion for leave to amend that complaint. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. No. 36.
A little over a week after the defendants filed their opposition to his motion to amend the complaint, the court received from the plaintiff a motion for leave to “file delayed response to defendant's motions.” Dkt. No. 37. The motion indicated that the plaintiff planned to file several documents, including “[r]esponse and supplemental responses to recent Defendant filings,” a supplement to his motion for leave to amend the complaint, a supplement to his motion to compel and a new motion for sanctions. Id. at 1. The defendants opposed the motion. Dkt. No. 38.
Five days later, on December 28, 2021, the court received from the plaintiff a second motion for sanctions, dkt. no. 40, as well as a response to a declaration that had been filed by the defendants in support of their response to the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, dkt. no. 42. The defendants filed a brief in opposition to the second motion for sanctions. Dkt. No. 43. This
time, the plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his motion for sanctions, dkt. no. 46, along with a declaration, dkt. no. 47.
On January 18, 2022-six days after the court received the plaintiff's reply brief-the defendants filed an expedited, non-dispositive motion under Civil Local Rule 7(h) (E.D. Wis.) for leave to file a sur-reply to the plaintiff's response to the declaration the defendants had filed in support of their response to his motion for an extension of time. Dkt. No. 48. The following day-January 19, 2022-the court received from the plaintiff a second motion for leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. No. 49. The first three pages of the second motion are identical to the motion for leave to amend that the court received from the plaintiff in November 2021; the last page is dated November 16, 2021, just as the earlier motion had been, but the plaintiff added paragraphs to the last page about evidence he claims was uncovered in November 2021 depositions. Dkt. No. 49 at 4. The attached proposed second amended complaint had ballooned to forty-two pages, named nine defendants and purported to raise 111 claims. Dkt. No. 49-1.
A week later, the court received from the plaintiff his brief in opposition to the defendants' Rule 7(h) motion to file a sur-reply. Dkt. No. 50. A week after that, the defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's response, dkt. no. 51, along with a brief in support, dkt. no. 52. The plaintiff opposed that motion. Dkt. No. 53. The defendants also filed a brief opposing the plaintiff's second motion to amend the compliant. Dkt. No. 54.
By this time, it was February of 2022-a year since the defendants had removed the case to federal court. This court should have reacted long before it did. Unfortunately, it did not react until March 28, 2022. Dkt. No. 55. In its March 28, 2022 order, the court expressed regret that it had taken such a long time to act. Id. at 4. The court denied without prejudice the plaintiff's motion asking the court to compel discovery, impose sanctions and extend the deadline for discovery (Dkt. No. 15), explaining that the motion did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this court's local rules. Id. at 4-8. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to stay the discovery timeline (Dkt. No. 19), because the plaintiff had not identified the discovery he claimed to be missing and because he had sought to extend the deadline for amending pleadings months after that deadline had expired, without showing good cause. Id. at 8-11. The court explained that everyone must comply with the federal and local rules-even people who are representing themselves. Id. at 5. The court told the parties that it would address the remaining motions by separate order. Id. at 2.
A week later, the court received from the plaintiff a motion asking the court to reconsider its March 28, 2022 order. Dkt. No. 56. The plaintiff apologized for not understanding the rules, indicating that he'd assumed that the case could not go forward until the court had ruled on his motion to compel. Id. at 1. He asserted that because he is representing himself, “justice should prevail.” Id. at 2. The remainder of the motion disputed various factual allegations made by the defendants and argued that the court should “allow
Lady Justice to lead the way” despite the fact that he is representing himself and regardless of his gender or the gender of Robyn Polak. Along with the motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff filed fourteen pages of documents, including a notice of claim, email exchanges between he and defense counsel, an arrest report, a probable cause statement and judicial determination and a criminal complaint and an amended criminal complaint against Robyn Polak. Dkt. No. 57. The plaintiff titled these documents “Plaintiff's Rule 37 Certification of Good Faith.” Id. at 1.
II. The Court's Concerns
Before addressing the motions still pending, the court must address two general issues: the tangled procedural posture of the case and some issues relating to discovery.
A. Procedural Posture
The plaintiff is no stranger to...
To continue reading
Request your trial