Shehadeh v. Cox et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 61 Motion to Compel; denying 61 Motion for Sanctions; denying 64 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 2/10/2012. (hbs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMAL SHEHADEH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN COX, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:10-cv-985-GPM-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are a Motion to Compel and a Motion for a Hearing on the
Motion to Compel, both filed by pro se Plaintiff Jamal Shehadeh (Docs. 61 and 64). For the
reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jamal Shehadeh, an inmate in the Logan Correctional Center, claims that counsel
for defendants and the Illinois Department of Corrections have “fail[ed] to accommodate
Plaintiff’s prosecution of this claim” and have “interfere[ed] with the Plaintiff’s prosecution of this
and other matters.” Plaintiff asserts his right to access to the courts and states that he is having
problems with access to the law library. He claims, specifically, “[t]he continued denial of
plaintiff access to his legal work, the law library, ample envelopes, and threats of transfer and other
retaliation will result in prejudice and harm to the Plaintiff.” Plaintiff asks the Court to order staff
at Logan Correctional Center to permit him unlimited access to his legal papers; to allow him to
purchase as many envelopes as he needs, as often as he needs; to grant Plaintiff access to the law

library for at least five hours per week; and to take no retaliatory action against him, such as
transferring him to a higher-security prison. Plaintiff also asks the Court to hold a hearing on the
motion to compel (Doc. 64).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a claim of the denial of access to courts. Moreover,
Plaintiff has not identified any defendants in the case responsible for the alleged denial of legal
materials and library time. Defendants’ counsel is not a party to the case. If Plaintiff believes
Defendants’ counsel and other IDOC officials are violating his right of access to courts, he may
file another lawsuit challenging the denial of that right. As it stands now, however, there exist no
access-to-courts claims in this lawsuit.
More importantly, the Court has reviewed the docket and finds no indication that Plaintiff
has been limited in his ability file documents in the action. Of the 64 documents that make up the
record in this case, 22 are filings by Plaintiff. Plaintiff did seek an extension of time to file a reply
to the Defendants’ response to the Court’s January 4, 2012, Order to Show Cause. The Court
denied that motion, however, because the Order to Show Cause was directed to Defendants for a
response to the Court, not to the Plaintiff. As such, a reply brief, and access to the law library to
prepare a reply brief, was not necessary.
Furthermore, the Court is reluctant to involve itself in the day-to-day management of
prisons. “Federal judges must always be circumspect in imposing their ideas about civilized and
effective prison administration on state prison officials. The Constitution does not speak with
precision to the issue of prison conditions (that is an understatement); federal judges know little
about the management of prisons; managerial judgments generally are the province of other
2

branches of government than the judicial; and it is unseemly for federal courts to tell a state . . .
how to run its prison system.” Scarver v. Litscher, 434 F.3d 972, 976-77 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756, 759 (7th Cir.1985)). See also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482
(1995).
If, in the future, Plaintiff has difficulty filing a motion or a response to a motion by a
deadline imposed by the Court, he may seek an extension of time from the Court to file the specific
motion or response. The Court maintains flexibility over its own schedule and is willing to
continue deadlines where there is a legitimate need. Because of this flexibility, the Court is able
to accommodate the parties, but not overstep its boundaries into prison management. If Plaintiff
experiences continued difficulty filing documents with the Court, he may seek appointment of
counsel to assist him in prosecuting his case. If Plaintiff demonstrates he has now met the
requirements set forth in Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court will
reconsider his request and may appoint counsel.1
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on all the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 61) and
Motion for a Hearing (Doc. 64) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 10, 2012

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Plaintiff sought appointment of counsel at the outset of the case (Doc. 3). The Court denied his request without
prejudice because he did not show that he had made reasonable attempts to retain counsel without the Court’s
assistance, as required by Pruitt.

3