Williams, Roosevelt v. Smith, Judy et al
| Roosevelt M. Williams |
| Judy Smith, Jeffrey L. Freuna, Carey A. Halverson, Christopher Musha, Keith E. Pond, Russell J. Potratz, Eric D. Schroeder, James A. Zanon and Sandy Habeck |
| 3:2014cv00789 |
| November 14, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| Madison Office |
| Columbia |
| Stephen L. Crocker |
| James D. Peterson |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
184
JUDGMENT entered in favor of defendants dismissing the case. (rks),(ps)
|
|
Filing
163
ORDER that: 1. The state defendants may have until February 8, 2019, to respond to this order about Williams' access to the law library and resources for materials to complete his summary judgment response. 2. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery response, Dkt. 120 , is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's motion for an order directing defendant Design Specialties to prove that it mailed him a copy of its opposition to his motion to compel, Dkt. 129 , is DENIED. 4. Plai ntiff's motion to strike, Dkt. 134 , is DENIED. 5. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff copies of Dkt. 122 and Dkt. 123 . 6. Plaintiff's motion for the court's assistance in recruiting him counsel, Dkt. 162 , i s DENIED without prejudice. 7. Design Specialties' motions in limine, Dkt. 147 and Dkt. 150 , are DENIED without prejudice. 8. Plaintiff's motions for extension of his summary judgment response deadlines, Dkt. 121 and Dkt. [124 ], are GRANTED. 9. Plaintiff may have until March 4, 2019, to file his materials opposing the motions for summary judgment filed by both sets of defendants. Defendants may have until March 14, 2019, to file their respective replies. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/25/2019. (jef),(ps)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER denying plaintiff's 59 and 85 Motions for Sanctions; the state may have until September 8, 2017 to report back about whether it has returned plaintiff's legal documents to him; plaintiff's 73 motion for temporary restraini ng order is denied; plaintiff's 67 Motion to Compel discovery from Design Specialties, Inc. is denied; plaintiff's 73 Motion for an extension of Time to respond to Design Specialties motion for summary judgment is granted; plaintiff's 92 motion to Stay his summary judgment response deadline is denied as duplicative. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/25/2017. (elc),(ps)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.; denying 5 , 8 , 9 Motions for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel. (Amended Complaint due 7/28/2015.) Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/6/2015. (jef),(ps)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER denying plaintiff's 14 motion to reduce the monthly payment of his filing fee in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter Oppeneer on 5/01/2015. (nln),(ps)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER on ifp request: Initial partial filing fee of $ 33.40 assessed. Initial partial filing fee due 1/20/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 12/29/2014. (jef),(ps)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER on ifp request: Plaintiff to submit Trust fund account statement. Trust Fund Account Statement due 12/30/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 12/9/2014. (jef),(ps)
|
|
Filing
2
ORDER that plaintiff is to to submit either the $400 Filing Fee or a Trust Fund Account Statement by 12/5/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 11/17/2014. (elc),(ps)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Wisconsin Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
