Donelson v. Watson et al
Filing
223
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/24/2013. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 24 January, 2013 04:40:41 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CHARLES DONELSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIMMY WATSON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
12-CV-3086
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in
Menard Correctional Center, pursues constitutional claims arising
from an incident which occurred on July 11, 2011, during his
incarceration in Western Illinois Correctional Center. Before the
Court are several pending motions, addressed in turn below.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel docketed as number 141 is
granted in part and denied in part. After reviewing the
discovery requests, responses, and objections, the Court
concludes that, except as follows, Defendants’ responses
and objections were appropriate. Defendants Bradbury,
Goins, Hamilton, Jennings, Lindsay, Pool, and Watson are
directed to produce the following documents to Plaintiff or
to file a motion for an in camera inspection of the
following documents:
a.
The internal investigation report regarding the July
11, 2011 incident, redacted as necessary for
security reasons;
b.
Documents contained in Plaintiff’s master file which
relate to or refer to the July 11, 2011 incident;
c.
Documents in Defendants’ personnel files which
relate to or refer to the July 11, 2011 incident; and,
d.
Internal directives addressing the use of force
against inmates and the use of tactical teams.
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Nurse Still to answer his
discovery requests is granted in part and denied in part
(d/e 146). After reviewing the discovery requests,
responses, and objections, the Court concludes that,
except as follows, Defendant Still’s responses and
Page 2 of 10
objections were appropriate. By February 15, 2013,
Defendant Still is directed to provide Plaintiff with:
a.
The protocol sheets for treating inmates who
present with complaints of injuries caused by force
used by correctional officers or other prison
employees; and,
b.
Documents in Defendant Still’s personnel files
which relate to or refer to the July 11, 2011
incident.
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel docketed as number 159 is
granted in part and denied in part. The motion is moot as
to Plaintiff’s medical records because Defendant Still
represents that she will forward copies of those records to
Plaintiff when she receives them. The motion is also moot
as to the Internal Affairs report, which was the subject of
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discussed above. The rest of
Defendants’ responses and objections were appropriate,
except with respect to the following. By February 15,
2013, the IDOC Defendants are directed to answer the
following:
Page 3 of 10
a.
Who decided that Plaintiff would be transferred out
of Western Illinois Correctional Center after the July
11, 2011 incident? State said person or persons’
name(s) and job title(s).
4.
Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (d/e 172)
is denied for the reasons stated in the Court’s 5/17/12
order. Plaintiff still appears competent to proceed pro se.
Plaintiff has personal knowledge of most of the facts
giving rise to his claims, and he has been able to obtain
relevant evidence through discovery requests and motions
to compel. He has significant experience litigating in
federal court, and his claims are relatively simple.
5.
Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing prison officials to
allow him to correspond with inmates in another prison is
taken under advisement (d/e 188). By February 22,
2013, the Court requests that the Warden of Western
Correctional Center, Tarry Williams, and the Warden of
Menard Correctional Center, Rick Harrington, inform the
Court whether Plaintiff may be granted permission to
correspond with the inmates listed on page three of
Page 4 of 10
Plaintiff’s motion. Page three of the motion appears to
reference the cell numbers in which each inmate was
housed on July 11, 2011 in Western Illinois Correctional
Center. Plaintiff’s correspondence to each inmate will
contain only the nine questions set forth on page 2 of
Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s correspondence, and any
responses thereto, will not be sealed and will be subject to
search and review by prison staff.
6.
The clerk is directed to mail to Warden Tarry Williams and
Warden Rick Harrington a copy of this order with
paragraph five highlighted and a copy of Plaintiff’s motion
# 188.
7.
Plaintiff’s motion to question nonparties Steve Ruiz and
Penny Ruiz is denied (d/e 191), to the extent Plaintiff
seeks the Court’s assistance. However, the Court grants
the motion to the extent Plaintiff requests subpoenas.
The clerk is directed to send Plaintiff one subpoena
completed with the name of Steve Ruiz and one subpoena
completed with the name of Penny Ruiz, with both
subpoenas addressed to the Western Illinois Correctional
Page 5 of 10
Center but otherwise blank. Plaintiff is responsible for
completing and serving the subpoenas and otherwise
complying with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
8.
The clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 45.
9.
Plaintiff’s motion for a status report is denied as moot
(d/e 194).
10.
The motion for leave to file an amended answer by
Defendant Doug Pool is granted (d/e 197). The clerk is
directed to docket the amended answer. Defendant Doug
Pool maintains that the correct Defendant Pool is “David”
Pool, who wrote the incident report regarding the July
2011 incident.
11.
The clerk is directed to add “David Pool” as a Defendant
and to send David Pool a waiver of service.
12.
Plaintiff’s additional motions to compel against Defendant
Still and Goins (d/e’s 195, 198) are denied because these
Defendants have no record of receiving Plaintiff’s
document requests. Plaintiff may renew his motion to
compel after he has mailed his document requests to the
Page 6 of 10
appropriate Defendants and waited the appropriate
response time.
13.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Jennings’
admissions is granted only as to Plaintiff’s request
number 7 (d/e 199). By February 15, 2013, Defendant
Jennings is directed to inform Plaintiff whether Jennings
was officially on duty on July 11, 2011. The motion is
otherwise denied.
14.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel against Defendant Watson is
granted only as to Plaintiff’s request number 19 (d/e 200).
By February 15, 2013, Defendants are directed to provide
to Plaintiff a copy of the rescinded Administrative
Directive 01.12.130. The motion is otherwise denied.
Defendant Watson represents that he will be sending
Plaintiff the relevant medical records.
15.
Defendant Davis’ motion for an extension to file an
Answer is granted (d/e 204). The Court notes that Davis
has already filed her Answer.
16.
Plaintiff’s motion for service on Defendant Davis is denied
as moot (d/e 205).
Page 7 of 10
17.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Lindsey’s
admissions is denied (d/e 206). The Court has reviewed
Lindsey’s responses and finds them appropriate. Plaintiff
may believe that Defendant Lindsey’s responses are
untruthful, but the time for challenging the truth of
Lindsey’s version of events is at the summary judgment
stage or at trial.
18.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Pool’s admissions
is granted (d/e 207) to the extent Plaintiff asks Defendant
Pool to admit that Pool put an ink pen on the windowsill
in Plaintiff’s cell number 72 at Western Correctional
Center on July 11, 2011. Defendant Pool is directed to
respond to the admission by February 15, 2013.
19.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Watson’s
interrogatories is granted in part (d/e 208). By February
15, 2013, Defendant Watson is directed to produce his
medical records from 2003 to the present which relate to
or refer to any injury to or medical problem with either of
Watson’s hands. The record indicates that Defendant
Watson represented that his hand was fractured in the
Page 8 of 10
July 11 incident. Prior medical records may be relevant
to show that Watson had a preexisting hand injury which
was not caused by the events on July 11, 2011.
20.
Plaintiff’s motion to reschedule the status conference is
granted (d/e 212).
21.
The status conference set for February 26, 2013 is
rescheduled to March 11, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone
conference. Defendant Waldrop’s waiver of service was
sent to him on January 15, 2013 and is due back by
February 15, 2013.
22.
Defendants’ motion for leave to file a response to
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted (d/e 216). The
clerk is directed to separately docket the attachments to
docket entry 216 as a response to Plaintiff’s motion to
compel (d/e 141).
23.
Plaintiff’s deadline for identifying the tactical team
members is extended to April 30, 2013.
24.
The discovery deadline is extended to August 30, 2013.
Page 9 of 10
25.
The dispositive motion deadline is extended to September
30, 2013.
ENTER:
January 24, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 10 of 10
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?