Taylor v. Williamson et al

Filing 70

OPINION (SEE WRITTEN OPINION): 1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted in part and denied in part (d/e 66 ). The clerk is directed to add Dr. Lochard and Nurse Lucy Clark as Defendants and to attempt service on Lochard and Clark pursuant to the standard procedures. Plaintiff's motion is otherwise denied. 2) Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is denied (d/e 67 ). His request to proceed in forma pauperis is also denied because he is already p roceeding in forma pauperis. 3) Plaintiff's motion to subpoena witnesses for trial is denied as premature (d/e 68 ). Plaintiff may renew his motion if this case survives summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that he will be responsible for s erving the subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) Sua sponte, the discovery deadline is extended to March 29, 2013. Dispositive motions are due April 30, 2013. The final pretrial conference is rescheduled to November 5, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.. The jury trial is rescheduled to December 3, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. on the Court's trailing trial calendar. 5) A status conference is set for November 5, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone conference to check on service on Defendants Lochard and Clark. The conference will be cancelled if Lochard and Clark have been served. Accordingly, no writ shall issue to secure Plaintiff's presence at the conference until further order of the Court. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/09/2012. (VM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 09 October, 2012 10:47:20 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
FRANCHOT B. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
NEIL WILLIAMSON,
Defendant.

11-CV-3224

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, pursues claims arising from the denial of a
religious diet during his six-month detention at the Sangamon County Jail. On
September 11, 2012 the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
reopened discovery until January 31, 2013 for further development of the record,
and set another dispositive motion deadline for February 28, 2013.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint to add two new
defendants (Dr. Lochard and Nurse Clark) in addition to an unspecified number of
“unknown” defendants. Plaintiff appears to allege that Dr. Lochard and Nurse
Clark were involved in the denial of his requests for a religious diet. He also seeks
to add a new claim against Defendants Clemons and Bouvet for allegedly denying
Plaintiff access to the court.
1

At this stage of the proceedings, leave is required to file an amended
complaint. 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.’” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir.
2011)(quoted and other cites omitted).
Plaintiff does not explain his delay in seeking to add Dr. Lochard, Nurse
Clark, and the “unknown” defendants. The documents Plaintiff attaches to
support adding these Defendants were known to Plaintiff when he filed his
Complaint because these same documents are attached to the original Complaint.
However, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and allowing the addition
of two more defendants should not unduly delay the case since discovery has
already been reopened. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to add Dr. Lochard and
Nurse Lucy Clark to Plaintiff’s existing claims. “Unknown” defendants will not be
added. If Plaintiff discovers additional Defendants during this second round of
discovery, he must file another motion for leave to amend his Complaint.
Plaintiff’s request to add an access-to-courts claim against Defendants
Clemons and Bouvet will be denied because Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a
2

claim. An access-to-courts claim only arises if Plaintiff suffered an “actual injury”
from the inability to pursue a nonfrivolous claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
351 (1996). Plaintiff did not suffer an actual injury because he was not actually
prevented from bringing this claim. He alleges that Defendants Clemons and
Bouvet failed to process his grievances, but that alleged failure did not prevent him
from pursuing his claims in court. Additionally, inmates have no federal
constitutional right to a grievance procedure. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d
1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996)(“a state’s inmate grievance procedures do not give rise
to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”).
Plaintiff also seeks to add an equal protection claim, but the Court already
added an equal protection claim in the order of September 11, 2012.
Lastly, Plaintiff has filed a motion for the Court to seek counsel on his
behalf. The Court cannot consider the merits of the motion until Plaintiff shows
that he has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503
F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Typically, a plaintiff makes this showing by
writing to several different law firms and attaching the responses to the motion for
appointment of counsel. Additionally, Plaintiff should be aware that the Court
cannot require an attorney to accept pro bono appointment on a civil case such as
this. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). In determining whether the
3

Court should attempt to find an attorney to voluntarily take the case without pay,
the question is “given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent
to litigate it himself?" Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). If
Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set forth his educational background, his
litigation history, and his attempts to find counsel on his own.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted in part
and denied in part (d/e 66). The clerk is directed to add Dr. Lochard and Nurse
Lucy Clark as Defendants and to attempt service on Lochard and Clark pursuant to
the standard procedures. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied.
2) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is denied (d/e 67). His request to
proceed in forma pauperis is also denied because he is already proceeding in forma
pauperis.
3) Plaintiff’s motion to subpoena witnesses for trial is denied as premature
(d/e 68). Plaintiff may renew his motion if this case survives summary judgment.
Plaintiff is advised that he will be responsible for serving the subpoenas under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 45.
4) Sua sponte, the discovery deadline is extended to March 29, 2013.
Dispositive motions are due April 30, 2013. The final pretrial conference is
4

rescheduled to November 5, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.. The jury trial is rescheduled to
December 3, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. on the Court’s trailing trial calendar.
5) A status conference is set for November 5, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone
conference to check on service on Defendants Lochard and Clark. The conference
will be cancelled if Lochard and Clark have been served. Accordingly, no writ
shall issue to secure Plaintiff’s presence at the conference until further order of the
Court.
ENTERED: October 9, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5