Williamson v. Twaddell et al
Filing
91
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/15/2012. See written Opinion. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 15 March, 2012 03:42:40 PM
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. He also claims that his religion is
treated less favorably than other religions.
Discovery has closed and a summary judgment motion is pending,
but motions to compel and several other motions are also pending. This
order will rule on all pending motions except for Defendants’ summary
1
judgment motion. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file a
supplemental response to the summary judgment motion.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1) Plaintiff’s motions to certify documents under Federal Rule of
Evidence 902(4) is denied as premature (d/e 62). The Court will decide
any disputes over the authenticity of documents at the final pretrial
conference, if this case survives summary judgment.
2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Twaddell to answer
Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories is granted (d/e 63). While Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(a) does limit interrogatories to 25 in number, Plaintiff’s
incarceration necessarily restricts him to written discovery. Accordingly,
this Court’s practice is to allow an incarcerated Plaintiff to serve more
than 25 interrogatories, provided that the number of interrogatories is
not unduly burdensome and within reason. By March 30, 2012,
Defendant Twaddell is directed to answer Plaintiff’s second set of
interrogatories, to the extent he has not already done so. The Court
notes that Defendants have already responded to sixteen of those
2
interrogatories. This paragraph does not apply to those sixteen
interrogatories, which are addressed in paragraph nine below.
3) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to correctly respond to
Plaintiff’s first request for admissions is denied because the requests and
responses are not in the record (d/e 64). They are not attached to
Plaintiff’s motion or to Defendant Twaddell’s response. Therefore, the
Court is unable to determine the sufficiency of the responses.
4) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Young to answer
Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories is denied (d/e 66). The Court has
reviewed Defendant Young’s responses and finds nothing objectionable
about them, though Plaintiff may believe Defendant Young is being
evasive.
5) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to respond to
Plaintiff’s supplemental requests for admissions is denied (d/e 67). The
Court has reviewed the responses and finds them sufficient. The dispute
about relevancy need not be decided because Defendants fully responded
to the requests after making their objection to relevance. The Court will
3
resolve any disputes over the authenticity of documents at the final
pretrial conference, if this case survives summary judgment.
6) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Twaddell to produce
documents and give a supplemental interrogatory response is denied (d/e
71). The Court has reviewed the supplemental responses and Defendant
Twaddell’s affidavit and finds them compliant with the Court’s order of
November 18, 2011.
7) Plaintiff’s motion for “showing of good cause” is denied as
unnecessary (d/e 75). The Court is not denying Plaintiff’s motions to
compel on the grounds of timeliness.
8) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to respond to the pending
summary judgment motion is granted (d/e 77). Plaintiff has already filed
a response, but he may wish to supplement that response to the extent
Defendants produce additional information in compliance with this
order. Plaintiff’s deadline for filing a supplemental response to the
summary judgment motion is June 18, 2012.
9) Plaintiff’s second motion to compel Defendant Twaddell’s
4
answers to Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories is denied (d/e 83)
except for interrogatory six, which appears to ask why a Jewish inmate
was allowed to participate in Yom Kippur despite not making a request,
whereas Plaintiff was not allowed to participate in Yom Kippur, even
though he did make a request. The information might be relevant to
Plaintiff’s equal protection claim. Defendant Twaddell is directed to
provide a supplemental response to interrogatory six by March 30, 2012.
The Court has reviewed Defendant Twaddell’s other responses and finds
them sufficient.
10) Plaintiff’s “motion to docket the plaintiff’s response to
summary judgment via first class mail” (d/e 89) is denied because the
Court is unsure what relief Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff seems to assert that
his response sent electronically does not match his response sent by mail.
The Court will look at both responses when ruling on the summary
judgment motion. If Plaintiff wishes to strike his electronically filed
response and have the Court scan the mailed response into the docket,
he should file a motion by April 16, 2012.
5
11) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file a response to the
summary judgment motion is denied as moot (d/e 90). Plaintiff’s
supplemental response is due June 18, 2012.
ENTERED: March 15, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?