Munson v. Gaetz et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting 84 Motion to Stay; denying 85 Motion for Leave to File; denying 87 Motion to Appoint Counsel; finding as moot 93 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 10/7/2013. (jdp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES MUNSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD GAETZ ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:11-cv-159-GPM-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 84) filed by
Defendants, Suzann Griswold-Bailey, Ronald Brockhouse, Donald Gaetz, Jim Winters, Adrian
Feinerman, Magid Fahim, and Fe Fuentes, on September 5, 2013; the Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 85) filed by Plaintiff, James Munson, on September 6, 2013; the
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 87) filed by Plaintiff on September 6, 2013; the Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
91) filed by Plaintiff on September 27, 2013.

The Joint Motion to Stay Discovery is

GRANTED, the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED, the Motion to
Appoint Counsel is DENIED, and the Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED AS MOOT.
Joint Motion to Stay Discovery
This Court enjoys broad discretion in directing the course of discovery. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 26; James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. 2013). The power to stay
proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). How this can best be done calls for the
exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. Id.
Discovery can be stayed if certain threshold or jurisdictional issues could be efficiently
resolved prior to expensive discovery. See Todd by Todd v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
942 F.2d 1173, 1178 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Limiting discovery to a threshold issue is proper in a case
that may be resolved upon summary judgment”); Landstrom v. Illinois Dept. of Children and
Family Services, 892 F.2d 670, 674 (7th Cir 1990) (approving a stay in discovery pending a ruling
on qualified immunity).
In this matter, Defendants seek to stay discovery pending the outcome of a Central District
case concerning soy in prisoners’ diets. In that case, Harris, et al. v. Brown, et al., the issue of
whether the provision of soy in IDOC diets violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution has been fully briefed on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The motions
specifically address the question of whether the inclusion of soy in the diet creates a serious risk of
harm to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in Harris have an attorney and have retained experts in
support of their cause. Further, similar suits in the Central District of Illinois have been stayed
pending the outcome. See, e.g., Flowers v. Wexford, et al., 13-2118 (USDC-CDIL); Adams v.
Godinez, et al., 12-3272 (USDC-CDIL). To avoid unnecessary duplication and litigation of the
same issues, the discovery in this matter is STAYED pending the outcome of Harris, et al. v.
Brown, et al.,. Defendants are ORDERED to file a notice with this Court within 30 days of entry
of judgment in Harris.
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs district courts to freely grant parties leave

to amend when justice so requires. “Although the rule reflects a liberal attitude towards the
amendment of pleadings, courts in their sound discretion may deny a proposed amendment if the
moving party has unduly delayed in filing the motion, if the opposing party would suffer undue
prejudice, of if the pleading is futile.” Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Campania Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 848-849 (7th Cir. 2002)).
If an amended claim would not survive a motion to dismiss, the amendment is futile. Sound of
Music Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 477 F.3d 910, 922 (7th Cir. 2007). To state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must provide only “enough detail to give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, and, through his
allegation, show that it is plausible, rather than merely speculative, that he is entitled to relief.”
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). In making this
assessment, the court accepts as true all well-pled factual allegations and draws all reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Rujawitz v. Martin, 561 F.3d 685, 688 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff,
however, cannot amend his complaint to include only an unrelated claim that occurred after he
initiated this action. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (Unrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits in part to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing
fees).
After Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint, this Court conducted a merit review and found
that he could proceed on the following claims: (1) failure to provide a nutritionally adequate diet;
(2) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (against co-Defendants only); and (3)
infringement on Plaintiff’s ability to freely exercise his religion by failing to provide a soy-free
diet that conformed to Plaintiff’s religious beliefs. In his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff

alleges that he was denied medical treatment by Dr. Robert Shearing and that Wexford Health
Sources, Inc. and Warden Richard Harrington failed to intervene on his behalf. These allegations,
however, took place beginning April 2013, two years after Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint.
Plaintiff does not seek to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to file a wholly different complaint
by substituting his new Eighth Amendment claim for his prior Eighth Amendment and First
Amendment claims. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is
DENIED.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
This Court has denied Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel on three occasions (Docs. 8,
48, 70). As this Court previously found, Plaintiff appears competent to try this matter himself,
without a Court appointed attorney. The Court nonetheless retains the authority to revisit this
issue once the stay has been lifted and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment has been ruled
on by the Court.
Motion for Extension of Time
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is MOOT as this Order STAYS all discovery and deadlines in this matter. Plaintiff
may respond or file a motion for extension of time once the stay has been lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 7, 2013

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge