McFadden v. Pearl et al

Filing 129

ORDER FINDING AS MOOT 121 Motion for Court Assistance and Extension of Time; GRANTING 124 Motion to Withdraw; DENYING 125 Motion for Leave to File; FINDING AS MOOT IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 127 Motion for Order. See attached Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 1/7/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ONAFFIA MCFADDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICKEY PEARL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-cv-481-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, Onaffia McFadden, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants Rickey
Pearl, Matthew Swalls, and Marcus Martin denied him due process in connection with a
November 15, 2011 disciplinary hearing. On September 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment asserting he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see Doc. 100).
Defendants sought, and were granted, an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment and to file a dispositive motion of their own (see Docs. 105, 109 and 113).
Defendants filed the same on November 13, 2015 (see Docs. 114 and 115).
Subsequent to the filing of said documents, Plaintiff filed a motion for court assistance and
extension of time (Doc. 121) and a motion captioned “combined motion requesting Court order to
receive legal supplies and requesting this Court to allow Plaintiff summary judgment/supplement
brief and reply motion to remain as is” (Doc. 127), and Defendants filed a motion to withdraw
argument and motion for leave to amend (Docs. 124 and 125, respectively). The Court has
reviewed these motions, and any responses thereto, and finds they all relate, at least in part, to the
Page 1 of 4

argument proffered by Defendants that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may not pursue a claim for
relief that implies the invalidity of a criminal conviction, unless that conviction has been set aside
by appeal, collateral review, or pardon). More specifically, in their response to Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment and in their own motion for summary judgment, Defendants assert that the
ticket at issue at Plaintiff’s November 15, 2011 Disciplinary Hearing was never expunged and,
since Plaintiff lost good conduct credit and he seeks invalidation of this revocation, his action must
be dismissed. Soon after Defendants proffered this argument, Plaintiff filed his motion for court
assistance and motion for extension of time (Doc. 121), asserting that the ticket at issue was in fact
expunged, despite Defendants’ assertion otherwise, and asking the Court for assistance in securing
documents to evidence this fact and seeking an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion
so he may submit said documents.
Soon after Plaintiff filed his motion, Defendants filed a motion to withdraw argument
(Doc. 124). In this motion, Defendants explain that they recently learned that Plaintiff did not
lose good conduct credit as a result of the relevant incidents and their prior arguments regarding
Heck v. Humphrey were based on a clerical error. As such, Defendants ask the Court to withdraw
their second argument from their response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 114),
paragraph three of their motion for summary judgment (Doc. 115), and their second argument of
their memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment (Doc. 116).
Defendants also attached the relevant Good Conduct Recommendation Sheet for Plaintiff (Doc.
124-1). Defendants also filed a motion to amend, asking the Court for leave to amend their
response and motion for summary judgment to effect the same changes sought in their motion to
withdraw (i.e. removal of any argument related to Heck v. Humphrey).
Page 2 of 4

In response to

Defendants’ motions, Plaintiff filed a motion with a rather unwieldy caption, construed by the
Court as: (1) a response to Defendants’ motions to withdraw and amend (see Doc. 127, pp. 1-5);
(2) a motion for the Court to issue an order for legal supplies so Plaintiff may respond to
Defendants’ amended motion for summary judgment, if they are allowed to file such (see id. at p.
5); and (3) a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (as it is currently filed) (see
id. at pp. 7-43).
Upon review of the above-mentioned motions, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’
motion to withdraw. Accordingly, argument two of their response to Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 114), paragraph three of their motion for summary judgment (Doc. 115),
and argument two of their memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 116) are WITHDRAWN. As Defendants motion to amend merely seeks to omit the
arguments that the Court has already granted leave to withdraw and does not insert any additional
arguments or include any other changes, the Motion to Amend (Doc. 125) is DENIED.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for court assistance and extension of time (Doc.
121) is MOOT. The record before the Court indicates that the documents Plaintiff seeks were
filed by Defendants on December 15, 2015 (see Docs. 124-1 and 124-2) and Plaintiff has filed his
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Doc. 127, pp. 7-43). Insofar as
Plaintiff has filed a motion for the Court to issue an order for him to obtain legal supplies to
respond to Defendant’s amended motion for summary judgment (Doc. 127, p. 5), Plaintiff’s
request is MOOT as Defendants have not been granted leave to file an amended motion for
summary judgment.
The Court, however, finds it necessary to address Plaintiff’s apparent, and understandable,
frustration with Defendants in their handling of this matter and, more specifically, their motion for
Page 3 of 4

summary judgment. It is not lost on the Court that Defendants made a serious error and proffered
arguments that were not sound. Such error evidences, at best, sloppy management of this matter.
Importantly, it appears that evidence necessitating the withdrawal of Defendants’ Heck v.
Humphrey argument should have been available to Defendants throughout the impendency of this
matter (see Doc. 124-1). Further, it is unclear to the Court when and why this document became
available after motions for summary judgment were filed.

Although the Court finds that

Defendants were remiss in including any argument related to Heck v. Humphrey in their motion for
summary judgment and response to Plaintiff’s motion, it does not appear that Defendants’ failure
was motivated by bad faith or prejudiced Plaintiff. For these reasons, insofar as Plaintiff asks the
Court to deny Defendants’ motions to withdraw and motion to amend, his request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 7, 2016
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4