You are on page 1of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN


MILWAUKEE DIVISION
WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01516-NJ
Plaintiff,
v.
SARAH PALMER, ET AL.,
Defendants.
JOINT MOTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO BE PLACED UNDER A CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER
NOW COME Defendants Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson, by and through their counsel
Aaron J. Walker, Esq. in the above-styled case for the sole purpose of challenging personal and
subject matter jurisdiction and service of process and without waiving any rights of jurisdiction,
notice, process, service of process, joinder, or venue. They hereby jointly file this Motion for a
Case Management Order and state the following:
1.

As noted previously by these Defendants, the Plaintiff has been making a hash of

the docket, filing unusual letters (Docket Numbers 4 and 7), attempting to amend the complaint
without leave (Docket #6), filing an improper motion to disqualify counsel that included
scurrilous and vitriolic ad hominem attacks on undersigned counsel (Docket #18), an unjustified
supplement to that motion to disqualify filed without leave of court (Docket #24), and a motion
for summary judgment (Docket #25) filed before this Court had even determined that it had
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties before it. The docket has swelled to twenty

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 3 Document 29

nine entries as of this filing as the Plaintiff files one questionable paper after another and these
Defendants attempt to cope with this pro se Plaintiffs mismanagement of his case.
2.

It seems apparent to these Defendants that the Plaintiff is in need of closer

supervision by this Court before the docket becomes completely unmanageable. This Court has
broad discretion to manage its docket, and these Defendants believe the best solution at this point
would be a Case Management Order. Under the order the Defendants propose, the Plaintiff
would be required to obtain pre-clearance to file any document other than a responsive pleading
(i.e. an opposition or a non-opposition to a defense motion), by sending a letter to this Court
seeking such permission. The order could also require a greater sense of decorum from the
Plaintiff, including a prohibition on including any further materials subject to confidentiality
orders. The full contours of the proposal can be seen in the proposed order.
3.

By contrast, these Defendants submit that no such order is shown to be necessary

for these Defendants. Being represented by counsel, this Court can reasonably expect that as an
officer of this Court, undersigned counsel will file only appropriate motions at the appropriate
times, and refrain from inserting inappropriate materials into his filings.

WHEREFORE, this Court should issue a Case Management Order applicable to the Plaintiff,
and provide any other relief that is just and equitable.

2
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 3 Document 29

Friday, March 18, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Aaron J. Walker
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants Johnson and Palmer
Va Bar# 48882
DC Bar #481668
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
(703) 216-0455`
(No fax)
AaronJW1972@gmail.com

CIVIL L. R. 7(A)(2) CERTIFICATION


In compliance with Civil L. R. 7(a)(2), I certify that no separate supporting memorandum
or other supporting papers will be filed in relation to this opposition.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on Friday, March 18, 2016, I served copies of this document on William
Schmalfeldt by email by his consent.
s/ Aaron J. Walker

3
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 3 Document 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION
WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01516-NJ
Plaintiff,
v.
SARAH PALMER, ET AL.,
Defendants.
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
It is clear that this case is the latest in a protracted series of disputes between and among
the parties here, 1 and that the dispute between Plaintiff and at least some of these Defendants is
particularly bitter. However, [t]his Court is not a trampoline for the excess energies of litigants
whose need to have the last word exceeds the fair briefing of issues. Allnut v. U.S. Dept of
Justice, No. Y9801722, 2000 WL 34475731, at *14 (D. Md. March 6, 2000). The Court has no
option but to limit the deluge of filings in this case from the Plaintiff in order to prevent this case
from consuming an inordinate share of this Courts limited resources. Accordingly, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 16(b), and 83(b), I now issue this Case Management Order to allow for the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

This Plaintiff has previously filed four civil suits against similar defendants: Schmalfeldt v.
Hoge, et al., Case No. 14-CV-01685-CCB (D. Md. 2014); Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al., Case
No. 15-CV-00315-RDB (D. Md. 2015); Schmalfeldt v. Hoge, et al., Case No. 13-C-15-102498
(Md. Cir. Ct. Howard Co. 2015); and Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al., Case No. 15-CV-01241-RDB
(D. Md. 2015).

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 4 Document 29-1

MOTIONS PRACTICE
A. Requesting Permission to File a Motion
1.

The Plaintiff is allowed as a matter of course to file a single opposition to any motion
filed by any defendant in this case.

2.

In order to reduce the burden on this Court caused by the excessive volume of documents
filed to date by the Plaintiff, it is ORDERED that no other document may be filed by the
Plaintiff in this case without advance permission of the Court, in accordance with the
procedures set forth below.

3.

If the Plaintiff desires to file a motion, he must first file a letter seeking approval and
complying with the following requirements. Any letter that fails to comply with these
requirements and any document filed without complying with this Order will be stricken
from the docket by the Clerk.

4.

A request for permission to file a motion (Request) will be filed in letter format, and
may not exceed three pages, single spaced, twelve point font;

5.

The Request is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and must state with
particularity the relief that will be requested in the motion and the grounds for seeking the
relief requested;

6.

The Request will include a subject line that states:


a.

The caption of this case (e.g., Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al.), the Case Number
(2:15-cv-01516-NJ), and

b.

A title in the form of Request to File Motion to/for _____________, clearly


stating the nature of the relief sought.

7.

The Plaintiff may not file a Request on behalf of any other party or person;

8.

The first paragraph of the Request must contain a concise statement of the specific relief
sought and the justification for seeking it, and include a summary of the facts and law
that support the Request. It also must state why that relief is relevant to the issues in this
case and appropriate at the current stage of proceedings;

9.

Unless otherwise allowed by the Court, a Request may not contain more than 10 exhibits,
each of which must be separately identified by a number or letter. The Request must
explain why the exhibits are relevant to the relief requested;

10.

A Request may not seek any relief already sought and denied by the Court unless that
denial was expressly without prejudice or the Request is for reconsideration of the denial
based upon specific new facts or law that did not exist at the time the original motion was
2
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 4 Document 29-1

denied and specifically sets forth why the facts or law are relevant to the Request, and
could not reasonably have been known when the relief was originally denied;
11.

A Request may not seek to strike any other Request or filing without good cause; and

12.

No Request may contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter, or


any ad hominem attack on any party, attorney, any Judge or employee of this or any
Court, or any other person. Nor shall any Request include information covered by a
confidentiality order in this or any other court.

If a Request fails to comply with any of these requirements, it will be summarily


STRICKEN and will not be considered by this Court.
B. Filing Motions After a Request Has Been Granted
When the Court has granted a Request to file a Motion, the Motion must meet the following
requirements:
1.

Every motion or response will comply strictly with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
7(b) and 11, including the requirements for signatures and other identifying information
contained in Rule 11(a). The motion, any accompanying memorandum, opposition
memorandum may not exceed thirty (30) pages, double spaced. Any reply memorandum
may not exceed fifteen (15) pages. All such filings shall either be typed in 12 point font
or, if accompanied by a certification that the filer lacks access to a computer or
typewriter, be in clear, printed (i.e. not cursive) handwriting.

2.

Every motion or response shall contain a caption substantially identical to the caption on
this Case Management Order;

3.

Every motion shall have a clear, concise title that sets forth the identity of the movant or
movants and the relief sought in an unambiguous fashion;

4.

The Plaintiff may not file a motion on behalf of any other party or person;

5.

Each opposition or reply memorandum shall contain a title that clearly identifies the party
or parties on whose behalf it is submitted, the title of the original motion to which it
relates, and the ECF Number of the motion to which it relates;

6.

Opposition or reply memoranda must cite to the exact title of the original motion to
which they respond, provided that abbreviated titles may be used where substantial space
is saved;

7.

No surreplies will be permitted;

8.

No supplements will be permitted to a motion, opposition, or reply already filed unless


the party seeking to supplement first submits a Request, in letter format, not to exceed
3
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 4 Document 29-1

one, single-spaced page, setting forth what the proposed supplement will contain, why it
could not have been included in timely filed motion papers, and why it is necessary to the
just resolution of the pending motion;
9.

No exhibits to the Plaintiffs motions or replies will be permitted unless leave has been
requested and granted by attaching them to a Request pursuant to paragraph A.6 above.
Such exhibits will be numbered or lettered separately;

10.

No motion, opposition, or reply may contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or


scandalous matter, or any ad hominem attack on any party, any Judge or employee of this
or any Court, or any other person. Nor shall any document filed with this Court include
information covered by a confidentiality order in this or any other court.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this

day of

, 2016

BY THE COURT

NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge

4
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/18/16 Page 4 of 4 Document 29-1