Morris v Ball - Summary Judgment Denied for Non-Compliance With Local Rules

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 15, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Deontay T. Morris v. Martez Ball et al.

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00067

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DEONTAY T. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-CV-67

MARTEZ BALL et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Deontay Morris is representing himself in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against
Defendants Detective Martez Ball, Officer Mathew Link, Officer Ryan Dombeck, Officer Mark
Dillman, Officer James Spinato, Officer William Mauch, Officer Seth Edwards, Officer Mathew
Jackson, Officer Michael Schwandt, and Officer Erin Tischer of the Milwaukee Police
Department. On March 26, 2025, the Court screened the complaint and allowed Plaintiff to
proceed on a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants based on allegations that Defendants
fabricated evidence in Milwaukee County Case No. 23CF5622 to detain him without probable
cause. Dkt. No. 7. Defendants and Plaintiff have filed motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos.
25, 32. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. Dkt. No. 38.
The parties’ motions fail to comply with the Court’s summary judgment procedures. The
local rules of this district provide that with each motion for summary judgment, the moving party
must file “a statement of proposed material facts as to which the moving party contends there is
no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law.” Civil L.R.
56(b)(1)(C). The statement of proposed material facts “shall consist of short numbered paragraphs,
each containing a single material fact, including within each paragraph specific references to the
affidavits, declarations, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support
the fact described in that paragraph.” Civil L.R. 56(b)(1)(C)(i). Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff
submitted a statement of proposed material facts with their motion for summary judgment.
“[D]istrict courts may require strict compliance with their local rules.” Hinterberer v. City

of Indianapolis, 966 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2020). The Seventh Circuit has noted “the important
function served by local rules that structure the summary judgment process . . . .” Bordelon v. Chi.
Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “These rules assist
the court by organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely
how each side proposed to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 25) and Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 32) are DENIED without prejudice for failure to
comply with the District’s Local Rules. Motions for summary judgment that comply with the

District’s local rules may be filed within seven days of the date of this order. Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to file a sur-reply (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED at Green Bay, Wisconsin on April 15, 2026.
s/ Byron B. Conway
BYRON B. CONWAY
United States District Judge