Estate of Jermaine Claybrooks v. Schott

E.D. Wisconsin

Estate of Jermaine Claybrooks v. Schott

DecidedMarch 3, 2022

Docket2:19-cv-00160

StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Jermaine Claybrooks v. Schott (Estate of Jermaine Claybrooks v. Schott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Jermaine Claybrooks v. Schott, (E.D. Wis. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ESTATE OF JERMAINE CLAYBROOKS, By Co-Special Administrators, JOAN McCANTS and KENYANNA ALLEN, BIOLOGICAL MINOR CHILDREN J.J.C., By and through KEYANNA ALLEN, as Parent and guardian, and J.D.C., by and Through MARKIA S. LOVE, as parent and Guardian, Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 19-CV-160

MILWAUKEE POLICE OFFICERS JOHN SCHOTT, MARTEZ BALL, and JOHN IVY, WEST ALLIS POLICE OFFICERS TODD KURTZ and DANIEL DITTORRICE, Defendants.

ORDER The plaintiffs were represented by counsel when they filed this action more than three years ago. However, they were left to proceed pro se when their attorneys withdrew months into litigation. This posed a problem, I explained at an April 28, 2020, status conference, because “legal entities, including estates, must be represented by legal counsel.” ECF No. 42. Accordingly, I “stay[ed] any and all deadlines and direct[ed] the clerk to close the administrative file.” Id. I instructed Joan McCants “to alert both the Court and the Defendants in the event she is able to secure legal representation and able to resume this case.” Id. Having waited diligently for McCants to comply with my instructions, Defendants Todd Kurtz and Daniel Dittorrice now move to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 43. Although it is true that “dismissal for failure to prosecute is a harsh sanction which should usually be employed only in extreme situations,” I find that it is warranted here due to the plaintiffs’ “clear record of delay.” Martinez v. City of Chicago, 499 F.3d 721, 727 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Grun v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 163 F.3d 411, 425 (7th Cir. 1998)).

Twenty-two months have passed since I instructed McCants to secure legal counsel, and she has not once communicated with the court. In addition, the plaintiffs have not responded to the last two dispositive motions filed in this case. This pattern of non- responsiveness demonstrates that the plaintiffs are not diligently prosecuting this action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Todd Kurtz and Daniel Dittorrice’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on this 3rd day of March, 2022.

s/Lynn Adelman_________ LYNN ADELMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ESTATE OF JERMAINE CLAYBROOKS, By Co-Special Administrators, JOAN McCANTS and KENYANNA ALLEN, BIOLOGICAL MINOR CHILDREN J.J.C., By and through KEYANNA ALLEN, as Parent and guardian, and J.D.C., by and Through MARKIA S. LOVE, as parent and Guardian, Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 19-CV-160

MILWAUKEE POLICE OFFICERS JOHN SCHOTT, MARTEZ BALL, and JOHN IVY, WEST ALLIS POLICE OFFICERS TODD KURTZ and DANIEL DITTORRICE, Defendants.

ORDER The plaintiffs were represented by counsel when they filed this action more than three years ago. However, they were left to proceed pro se when their attorneys withdrew months into litigation. This posed a problem, I explained at an April 28, 2020, status conference, because “legal entities, including estates, must be represented by legal counsel.” ECF No. 42. Accordingly, I “stay[ed] any and all deadlines and direct[ed] the clerk to close the administrative file.” Id. I instructed Joan McCants “to alert both the Court and the Defendants in the event she is able to secure legal representation and able to resume this case.” Id. Having waited diligently for McCants to comply with my instructions, Defendants Todd Kurtz and Daniel Dittorrice now move to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 43. Although it is true that “dismissal for failure to prosecute is a harsh sanction which should usually be employed only in extreme situations,” I find that it is warranted here due to the plaintiffs’ “clear record of delay.” Martinez v. City of Chicago, 499 F.3d 721, 727 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Grun v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 163 F.3d 411, 425 (7th Cir. 1998)).

Twenty-two months have passed since I instructed McCants to secure legal counsel, and she has not once communicated with the court. In addition, the plaintiffs have not responded to the last two dispositive motions filed in this case. This pattern of non- responsiveness demonstrates that the plaintiffs are not diligently prosecuting this action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Todd Kurtz and Daniel Dittorrice’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on this 3rd day of March, 2022.

s/Lynn Adelman_________ LYNN ADELMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Estate of Jermaine Claybrooks v. Schott, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-jermaine-claybrooks-v-schott-wied-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack