Evans v. Sexton et al

Filing 148

MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Request for Counsel (D.I. 126 ) is Denied without prejudice to renew. The Request for Alternative Dispute Resolution (D.I. 127 ) is Denied without prejudice to renew upon request by all parties. To the extent that D.I. [128 ] is a motion for reconsideration it is Denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the court docket for his review. The motion for additional interrogatories (D.I. 136 ), on the present record, is Denied. The motio n for "additional" admissions (D.I. 137 ) is Granted in part and Denied in part. Plaintiff will be allowed to propound a total of 20 requests for admission upon each defendant. The motion for an extension of all deadlines (D.I. 145 ) is Granted in part. All discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before March 26, 2020. All case dispositive motions shall be served and filed on or before June 26, 2020 (see Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/15/2019. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AUGUSTUS HEBREW EVANS, JR. ,
Plaintiff,
: Civ. Action No. 16-598-RGA

V.

LEZLEY SEXTON , et al. ,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this

,r

day of November, 2019 , having considered the

pending motions (D .1.126, 136, 137, 145),
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

Request for Counsel.

Plaintiff's fourth request for counsel (D.I. 126) is

denied without prejudice to renew for the reasons set forth in the Court's July 11 , 2019

Memorandum and Order. (See D.I. 118, 119).
2.

Request for Alternative Dispute Resolution . Plaintiff's request for

alternative dispute resolution (D.I. 127) is denied without prejudice to renew upon
request by all parties.
3.

Status Motion; Specific Inquiry. Plaintiff has filed two letters regarding

the status of his case.

(D .I. 128, 139). One seems to seek reconsideration of the

dismissal of his medical negligence claims that were dismissed in the Court's July 11 ,
2019 Memorandum and Order.

(D .I. 128). To the extent that is his intent, the motion

for reconsideration is denied . The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
"correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. " Max's

1

Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 , 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the grounds necessary to warrant a
reconsideration of the July 11 , 2019 Memorandum and Order.
4.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to rule on a motion for summary judgment

filed by Defendants Sexton , Francis , and Ellis.

The Court has reviewed the Court

docket and there is no pending motion for summary judgment filed by the foregoing
Defendants. Plaintiff also inquires "as to the standing" of the case against the
foregoing Defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of
the court docket for his review.
5.

Plaintiff's second letter complains of Court bias.

(D .I. 139).

Plaintiff

states that he will seek my recusal if I do not address the issue of bias . To the extent
Plaintiff seeks my recusal , his remedy is to file a proper motion . It is evident in reading
Plaintiff's letter that he takes exception to rulings made by me and this serves as his
basis to assert bias. However, a reasonable , well-informed observer could not believe
that my rulings were based on impartiality, bias , or actual prejudice . See In re
Kensington Int'/ Ltd. , 368 F.3d 289 , 301 (3d Cir. 2004) (the test is whether a reasonable

person , with knowledge of all the facts , would conclude that the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned, not whether a judge actually harbors bias against a
party) .
6.

Additional Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions . Plaintiff

asks the Court to allow him to serve additional interrogatories; a minimum of 57 . (D.I.
136). He also asks to serve 57 additional requests for admission upon each
Defendant.

(D .I. 137).

Defendants Sexton , Francis, and Ellis oppose both requests.
2

(0.1. 143). Neither side provides (or directs me to where I may find) the thirty
interrogatories Plaintiff has already propounded , which Defendants describe as "mostly
unintelligible ." I looked , and they are at 0 .1. 109. I would not describe them as "mostly
unintelligible ," or even close to that, but I do not understand why Plaintiff needs any
more interrogatories. He is already over the Federal Rules limit.

Plaintiff describes

"prior experience of counsel wasting interrogatories and ability of Defendants to deny
It is not clear at all whether Plaintiff has

answering questions relevant to the case."

already filed any requests for admission . The motion for additional interrogatories (0 .1.
136), on the present record , is denied.

The motion for "additional" admissions (0 .1.

137) is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff will be allowed to propound a total

of 20 requests for admission upon each defendant.
7.

Motion to Extend Discovery Schedule . Plaintiff moves for an extension

of all deadlines set forth in the July 26 , 2019 scheduling and discovery order. (0 .1.
145). The motion is granted in part. Defendants Cannuli and Muscarella do not
oppose the extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines and these
deadlines will be extended . (D .I. 147). Plaintiff also seeks to propound additional
interrogatories and requests for adm ission . This issue was discussed above at
paragraph 6.
A.

Discovery Cut Off. All discovery (including expert report

disclosures , if any) in this case shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or
before March 26, 2020.
B.

Case Dispositive Motions. All case dispositive motions, an

opening brief, and affidavits , if any, in support of the motion shall be served and
3

filed on or before June 26, 2020.

No case dispositive motion under Rule 56

may be filed more than ten days before the above date without leave of the
Court.
C.

The pretrial conference and trial date will be set for a date to be

determined .

4