Semons v. Utter

E.D. Wisconsin

Semons v. Utter

DecidedApril 29, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01497

StatusUnknown

This text of Semons v. Utter (Semons v. Utter) 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

Semons v. Utter, (E.D. Wis. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

FLOYD L. SEMONS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-CV-1497

HANNAH UTTER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On April 28, 2025, pro se plaintiff Floyd L. Semons filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 103), a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 104), and a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 105). This order resolves these motions. In his motion to compel Semons takes issue with the court’s April 17, 2025, ruling on his motion for leave to file a sur-reply and amend his complaint. (ECF No. 102.) He also states that the defendants still have not properly replied to his discovery requests as they relate to a defendant he is attempting to add at this late stage in the case. The court has already addressed why Semons cannot seek discovery or add Dr. Panos as a defendant. (See, e.g. ECF No. 102.) Discovery is closed. Summary judgment is fully briefed. Semons’s motion to compel is denied. Similarly, Semons’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s April 17, 2025, order is also denied. Semons takes issue with the court’s reasoning for disallowing a sur-reply and an amended complaint, which is not a basis for a motion for reconsideration. See Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 244 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that a motion that “merely took umbrage with the court’s ruling and rehashed arguments” was properly rejected by the district court). As for Semons’s motion to appoint counsel, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits is fully briefed and awaiting resolution. At this stage in the case there is nothing for a lawyer to assist Semons with. Should the case survived summary judgment, Semons may renew his motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Semons’s motion to compel (ECF No. 103) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Semons’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 104) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Semons’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 105) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 29th day of April, 2025.

BY THE COURT

WILLIAM E. DUFFIN United States Magistrate 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

FLOYD L. SEMONS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-CV-1497

HANNAH UTTER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On April 28, 2025, pro se plaintiff Floyd L. Semons filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 103), a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 104), and a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 105). This order resolves these motions. In his motion to compel Semons takes issue with the court’s April 17, 2025, ruling on his motion for leave to file a sur-reply and amend his complaint. (ECF No. 102.) He also states that the defendants still have not properly replied to his discovery requests as they relate to a defendant he is attempting to add at this late stage in the case. The court has already addressed why Semons cannot seek discovery or add Dr. Panos as a defendant. (See, e.g. ECF No. 102.) Discovery is closed. Summary judgment is fully briefed. Semons’s motion to compel is denied. Similarly, Semons’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s April 17, 2025, order is also denied. Semons takes issue with the court’s reasoning for disallowing a sur-reply and an amended complaint, which is not a basis for a motion for reconsideration. See Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 244 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that a motion that “merely took umbrage with the court’s ruling and rehashed arguments” was properly rejected by the district court). As for Semons’s motion to appoint counsel, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits is fully briefed and awaiting resolution. At this stage in the case there is nothing for a lawyer to assist Semons with. Should the case survived summary judgment, Semons may renew his motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Semons’s motion to compel (ECF No. 103) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Semons’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 104) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Semons’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 105) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 29th day of April, 2025.

BY THE COURT

WILLIAM E. DUFFIN United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Semons v. Utter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/semons-v-utter-wied-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack