Lingle v. Kibby et al
Filing
290
OPINION: Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction/injunction and motions to amend are denied because the motions are an attempt to expand the claims in this case far beyond the claims identified above 261 , 269 , 270 , 278 , 286 . The motion to withdraw Attorney Poe as an attorney of record is granted 281 . Plaintiff's objections to the Court's orders are denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks action from the Court or reconsideration of the Court's orders 287 . Discovery is opened on the sole issue of whether the facility's rules on possession of gaming systems and electronicswithout internet capability violate Plaintiff's First Amendment rights. Discovery closes on September 28, 2018. Dispositi ve motions on this sole issue are due October 31, 2018. By July 31, 2018, Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiff's motion for access to legal supplies 286 , informing the Court whether Plaintiff has access to paper, pen, envelopes, pos tage, typewriter, and typewriter ribbon necessary to conduct the remaining discovery in this case and address dispositive motions. The clerk is directed to terminate Attorney Poe. The scanning ban on Plaintiff is lifted. However, theonly documents Pl aintiff should be scanning to the Court at thispoint are motions to compel (if Defendants do not adequately answer Plaintiff's discovery requests), a dispositive motion, and/or a response to a dispositive motion. Plaintiff must mail his discover y requests to defense counsel and not file those requests with the Court unless the discovery requests are the subject of a motion to compel. Abuse of the scanning privileges will result in reinstatement of the ban. The clerk is directed to send this text order to Director Gregg Scott, for dissemination to the appropriate person who supervises access to the scanner. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 07/25/2018. (SKN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 25 July, 2018 01:14:58 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LAWRENCE LINGLE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALFREDA KIBBY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-CV-3101
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his detention in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center. This case began as a challenge to
the restrictions on video gaming systems and other electronic
devices at the facility. The Seventh Circuit reversed as to the ban
on video gaming systems. Lingle v. Kibby, 526 Fed. Appx. 665 (7th
Cir. 2013). Thereafter, in a different case, the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the restriction on video gaming consoles that have internet
capability, but reversed as to a claim challenging the restrictions on
certain movies and video games. Brown v. Phillips, 801 F.3d 849
(7th Cir. 2015). On remand, discovery was reopened in this case,
and this Court later defined the remaining claim in this case as a
Page 1 of 5
challenge to the prohibitions on certain movie and video games.
(12/4/15 text order.) The Court denied summary judgment on the
movie/video games claim in June 2017, finding essentially that
Defendants relied on the same evidence that led to this case’s
reversal. The Court also found that it had been incorrect to
conclude that the Brown case resolved Plaintiff’s claims about video
gaming systems and electronics. (6/30/17 Order.) The Plaintiff
alleges in this case that video gaming systems and electronics, such
as electronic tablets, can be purchased without any internet
capability. Brown arguably did not directly address the issue of
video gaming systems and electronics with no internet capability.
The claims that remain in this case are, therefore, that the facility’s
restrictions on movies, video games, and video gaming systems or
electronics that can be purchased without any internet capability
violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s attempts to
expand these claims is denied.
The Court does not believe that the issue of video gaming
systems and electronics without internet capability has been
addressed. A short discovery period and dispositive motions on this
issue only will be allowed. This case will not be consolidated with
Page 2 of 5
Brown, 10-cv-3163, after consideration of the parties’ objections to
that approach.1 The remaining claim in Brown appears to involve
only a challenge to the movies/games restrictions, not to the
restrictions on gaming systems/electronics with no internet
capability.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction/injunction
and motions to amend are denied because the motions are an
attempt to expand the claims in this case far beyond the claims
identified above. (d/e’s 261, 269, 270, 278, 286.)
(2)
The motion to withdraw Attorney Poe as an attorney of
record is granted. (d/e 281.)
(3) Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s orders are denied to the
extent Plaintiff seeks action from the Court or reconsideration of the
Court’s orders. (d/e 287.)
(4) Discovery is opened on the sole issue of whether the
facility’s rules on possession of gaming systems and electronics
without internet capability violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment
The Court’s third case about movie/game restrictions was Hargett, 13-3132, but that case
has closed due to Mr. Hargett’s death.
1
Page 3 of 5
rights. Discovery closes on September 28, 2018. Dispositive
motions on this sole issue are due October 31, 2018.
(5) By July 31, 2018, Defendants are directed to respond to
Plaintiff’s motion for access to legal supplies (d/e 286), informing
the Court whether Plaintiff has access to paper, pen, envelopes,
postage, typewriter, and typewriter ribbon necessary to conduct the
remaining discovery in this case and address dispositive motions.
(6) The clerk is directed to terminate Attorney Poe.
(7) The scanning ban on Plaintiff is lifted. However, the
only documents Plaintiff should be scanning to the Court at this
point are motions to compel (if Defendants do not adequately
answer Plaintiff’s discovery requests), a dispositive motion, and/or a
response to a dispositive motion. Plaintiff must mail his discovery
requests to defense counsel and not file those requests with the
Court unless the discovery requests are the subject of a motion to
compel. Abuse of the scanning privileges will result in
reinstatement of the ban. The clerk is directed to send this text
order to Director Gregg Scott, for dissemination to the
appropriate person who supervises access to the scanner.
ENTER:
Page 4 of 5
FOR THE COURT: 7/25/2018
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
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?