Schloss v. Wilczynski et al
Filing
83
OPINION Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 10/21/14. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 58 Motion to Compel and 59 Motion to Compel are Denied as Moot; 75 Motion for Leave to File is Denied and 79 Motion for Extension of Time to File is Granted. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to 12/1/14. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. (SKD, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 21 October, 2014 08:45:58 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEREMY SCHLOSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AIMEE WILCYNSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13-CV-3029
OPINION
COLIN STIRLING BRUCE, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se from his detention in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, pursues claims about the alleged
lack of treatment for his serious mental disorder, alleged
overcrowding at Rushville, and alleged retaliation for Plaintiff's
complaints about his treatment. Discovery closed September 30,
2014, except for several pending motions to compel, some of which
are addressed in turn below.1
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied (66). Defendants
Saddler and Ashby have provided their curricula vitae to
1
Plaintiff filed two more motions to compel on October 15, 2014. Those will not be addressed until after
Defendants’ response time passes.
Page 1 of 4
Plaintiff, and Defendants have provided the contract between
Liberty and DHS.
2) In order to expedite matters, Defendant Scott is directed to
respond to Plaintiff’s first request to produce documents and
first set of interrogatories by November 17, 2014. Plaintiff will
not be required to serve another copy of the requests on
Defendant Scott.
3) Plaintiff’s motions to compel answers to his first set of
interrogatories are denied as moot (58, 59). Defendant Ashby
has provided his responses, and Defendant Scott is being
directed to provide his responses.
4) Plaintiff’s motion to add three new defendants and claims
against those three new defendants is denied (75). Leave to
amend 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). The three new
Page 2 of 4
proposed defendants have allegedly provided false or
ambiguous information in Plaintiff’s “master file” or clinical
notes which negatively affects Plaintiff’s chances of gaining
release in his state court proceedings or receiving an accurate
diagnosis and treatment. If the alleged false statements are
used against Plaintiff in state court, the place to challenge
those statements is in state court, not in a federal civil rights
action. See, e.g., DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 614 (7th
Cir. 2000)(challenges to fact or duration of confinement must
be pursued in habeas action, not in an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that proposed
new Defendant Dr. Hernandez has been Plaintiff’s primary
therapist since September, 2013, but Plaintiff does not
explain why he waited almost one year to try to add Dr.
Hernandez as a Defendant. Lastly, to the extent these new
defendants are involved in the alleged lack of proper mental
health diagnosis and treatment, if new defendants are added
each time Plaintiff’s treatment team changes, then this case
will go on indefinitely.
Page 3 of 4
5) Defendant Caraway’s motion to extend her deadline for
responding to Plaintiff’s second document request to October
26, 2014, is granted (79).
6) The dispositive motion deadline is extended to December 1,
2014.
ENTERED: 10/21/14
FOR THE COURT:
s/Colin Stirling Bruce
COLIN STIRLING BRUCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
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?