White v. Lambert et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 3 Motion to notify court of pendant jurisdiction; granting 5 Motion to Supplement; finding as moot 6 Motion to notify court of pendant jurisdiction; denying 7 Motion to substitute judge; finding as moot 8 Motion to Copy; granting 9 Motion to Withdraw motion; granting 10 Motion to Supplement; granting 11 Motion to Withdraw motions; denying 14 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 15 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 16 Motion to add exhibits. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 11/12/09. (eed, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DONNIE D. WHITE, Plaintiff, vs. GREGORY LAMBERT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. 09-cv-293-DRH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: Plaintiff Donnie D. White filed this action against 51 employees at the Tamms Correctional Center, and several motions are currently pending. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC. 15) In this motion, White seeks leave to file his first amended complaint, and he has submitted a copy of his proposed amended complaint. His amended complaint does not add new defendants, although it appears that he is correcting the names of two: Jan Miller to Jhan Millen, and Lakesha Baker to Lakesha Hamby. The instant motion is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the first amended complaint and make the necessary corrections to the entries for these two defendants. MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERRORS (DOC. 14) White wishes to have the Clerk make certain corrections to the names and titles of the defendants in this action. He asserts that the errors in the docket were made by the Clerk. A careful comparison of the docket entries to the original complaint shows that the Clerk made the docket

entries exactly as specified by White, and thus there are no clerical errors to correct. This motion is DENIED, except to the extent that those corrections are reflected in the amended complaint. MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS (DOCS. 9, 11) White initiated this action with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), which he now seeks to withdraw (Doc. 9). This motion is GRANTED; the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is now MOOT. White also wishes to withdraw his duplicate motion to notify the court of pendant jurisdiction and his motion for a copy of the complaint (Doc. 11). This motion is GRANTED; these two motions (Docs. 6, 8) are now MOOT. MOTIONS TO ADD ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS (DOCS. 5, 10, 16, 17) With each of these motions, White has submitted exhibits to show exhaustion of administrative remedies on his various claims. These motions are GRANTED. The Court notes that the first three motions have the exhibits included as part of the motion filing, but with the fourth (Doc. 17), the proposed exhibits were submitted separately. The Clerk is DIRECTED to FILE those proposed exhibits. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE (DOC. 7) White does not explain why he seeks such a substitution; he simply asserts that he "has a constitutional right" to such a substitution "before trial has been set." White is incorrect. The only basis for substitution or recusal of an assigned judge is set forth by statute, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455, and White invokes neither statute. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED. MOTION TO NOTIFY COURT OF PENDANT JURISDICTION (DOC. 3) In this motion, White asks the Court to file federal criminal charges against any defendant

Page 2 of 3

who may be found civilly liable in this action. However, federal criminal charges may be filed only as specified by federal rules, see FED.R.CRIM.P. 3, 7, and this motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 12, 2009. /s/ DavidRHerndon

CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 3 of 3