Williamson v. Twaddell et al
Filing
45
OPINION: Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the denial of his motions for preliminary injunction is denied (d/e 28). Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for sanctions is denied (d/e 29). Plaintiff's motion for servi ce of subpoenas is denied (d/e 30). Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint is denied (d/e 32). Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental pleading is granted (d/e 38). Plaintiff's motion for an order directing that his depositi on be taken in the attorney visiting room, rather than in the "disciplinary visiting area," is denied (d/e 41). Deposition arrangements are up to the prison. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file his motion to compel regarding his inte rrogatories to Defendant Twaddell is granted (d/e 27). The clerk is directed to docket the motion to compel attached to d/e 27. Defendants shall have until November 4, 2011, to file a response. The Court will rule on all of the pending motions to compel in a separate order. Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline to October 30, 2011, is denied as unnecessary (d/e 37). Discovery is not set to close until November 30, 2011. See written Opinion. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/17/2011. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 17 October, 2011 11:22:49 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CLARENCE BERNARD
WILLIAMSON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM TWADDELL and
RICHARD YOUNG,
Defendants.
10-CV-3325
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Western Illinois Correctional
Center, pursues claims arising from the alleged denial of his right to
change and practice his religion. The case is currently in the process of
discovery, with discovery set to close on November 30, 2011.
In July, 2011, Plaintiff filed two motions for preliminary
injunction, seeking an order requiring Defendants to provide him Kosher
meals. (d/e’s 17, ). He asserted that he was fed a vegan meal, rather
1
than a Kosher meal, during Passover and the unleavened bread feast. He
alleges that he has to trade commissary items in order to obtain “clean
foods” and foods stamped with a circled “U,” which apparently means
the foods were prepared without chemically-modified pork gelatin. He
also seems to assert that the commissary does not provide enough
Kosher items, which he allegedly needs to supplement his diet. Plaintiff
asked the Court to order a Kosher diet for Plaintiff, order that Plaintiff’s
religion be changed to Messianic, and order Defendant Twaddell to
accommodate Plaintiff’s religious requests.
On August 25, 2011, Judge Baker denied the motions for
preliminary injunction on the grounds that Plaintiff had not
demonstrated irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms weighed
in Defendants’ favor. The case was then transferred to this Court.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider Judge Baker’s denial of
the motions for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff is correct that “the
loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.
2
347, 373 (1976). However, Plaintiff’s motions do not demonstrate that
his First Amendment claims have any likelihood of success. The
attachments to the motions show that Plaintiff’s request to participate in
the Passover feast was granted. He was provided unleavened bread and a
vegan meal. He asserts that this was not Kosher, but he does not explain
why. Another attachment shows that Plaintiff’s request to participate in
the Pentecost Feast was denied because it was submitted too late, not
because of a desire to prevent Plaintiff from exercising his religion.
The
other attached grievance only demonstrates that the prison refuses to
stock more Kosher products in the commissary, not that Plaintiff is
being denied a Kosher diet. In short, Plaintiff has not yet demonstrated
that he actually has a viable First Amendment claim. “‘[A] preliminary
injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be
indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.’” Girl Scouts of
Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of America, 549 F.3d 1079,
1085 (7th Cir. 2008)(quoted cites omitted). Plaintiff must do more than
state a claim under notice pleading standards to obtain preliminary
3
injunctive relief.
Plaintiff also moves to reconsider Judge Baker’s denial of Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions against Defendant Twaddell. Plaintiff asserts that
Twaddell has been evasive and untruthful in responding to Judge Baker’s
order directing Twaddell to provide supplemental discovery responses.
Plaintiff also contends that Twaddell is holding back information.
However, this Court agrees with Judge Baker that sanctions are not
warranted. Defendant Twaddell’s responses appear to be responsive,
though Plaintiff may not agree with them.
Plaintiff also seeks service of subpoenas duces tecum, apparently to
obtain copies of grievances filed against Defendant Twaddell by other
inmates alleging similar violations. However, in forma pauperis status
does not authorize this Court to pay for service of subpoenas for
indigent parties. If Plaintiff wants to serve a subpoena, he must arrange
for service of the subpoena under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Further, the
subpoena would be subject to a motion to quash as too burdensome,
given the marginal relevance other inmates’ grievances. Defendant
4
Twaddell has already asserted that there are no such grievances in his
personnel file. Finding other grievances against Twaddell would require
a search of every inmate’s master file. And, a grievance is only evidence
that an inmate complained, not that the complaint had merit, much less
that the complaint has any relevance to Plaintiff’s claim. This motion
will therefore be denied.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to amend his complaint to add two
new defendants: Sara Johnson and Michael Randle, who both denied
Plaintiff’s grievances at the Administrative Review Board level. Leave of
this Court is required for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave should be “freely give[n] when justice so
requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), but “district courts have broad
discretion to deny leave to amend where there is undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to
the defendants, or where the amendment would be futile.” Arreola v.
Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff does not explain his delay in adding these new defendants.
5
Discovery began last April and is set to close next month. It is clear from
the grievances attached to the motion to amend that Plaintiff was given
notice of the denial of his grievances by Sara Johnson and Michael
Randle in March, 2010, and in July, 2011.
Further, adding these new defendants would be futile because
Plaintiff cannot state a claim against them. Neither can be held liable
for Defendant Twaddell’s constitutional violations simply because they
denied Plaintiff’s grievances or because they were in charge. See Chavez
v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)(no respondeat
superior liability under § 1983); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10
(7th Cir. 2007) (“Only persons who cause or participate in the violations
are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint
does not cause or contribute to the violation.”); Johnson v. Snyder, 444
F.3d 579, 583-84 (7th Cir.2006)(liability under § 1983 requires personal
involvement). The motion to amend the complaint to add new
defendants will therefore be denied.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to supplement his complaint with
6
allegations that Defendants have retaliated against him for this lawsuit
by refusing to allow him to participate in Yom Kippur and other holy
days. Defendants have not responded, so this motion will be allowed
without further discussion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the denial of his motions for
preliminary injunction is denied (d/e 28).
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for
sanctions is denied (d/e 29).
3.
Plaintiff’s motion for service of subpoenas is denied (d/e 30).
4.
Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint is denied (d/e 32).
5.
Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental pleading is granted (d/e
38).
6.
Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing that his deposition be
taken in the attorney visiting room, rather than in the “disciplinary
visiting area,” is denied (d/e 41). Deposition arrangements are up
to the prison.
7
7.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file his motion to compel regarding
his interrogatories to Defendant Twaddell is granted (d/e 27). The
clerk is directed to docket the motion to compel attached to d/e 27.
Defendants shall have until November 4, 2011, to file a response.
The Court will rule on all of the pending motions to compel in a
separate order.
8.
Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline to October 30,
2011, is denied as unnecessary (d/e 37). Discovery is not set to
close until November 30, 2011.
ENTERED: October 17, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?