Haley v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al
Filing
130
ORDER GRANTING 82 Notice to All Parties (Motion to Confirm Filings); DENYING 88 Motion to Appoint Counsel; GRANTING 89 Motion for Reception of Documents; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 108 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend; DENYING 109 Re quest for the Plaintiff's Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Dennis Larson, M.D.; DENYING 110 Request for the Plaintiff's Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Ravyn Olin; GRANTING 111 Motion for Leave to File; GRANTING 112 Motion to Copy; DENYING 116 Motion to Strike ; DENYING 118 Request for the Plaintiff's Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Dennis Larson, M.D.; DENYING 119 Request for the Plaintiff's Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Ra vyn Olin; and DENYING 120 Request for the Plaintiff's Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Alan Montgomery, M.D. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the docket sheet in this matter. See Order for further information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 12/28/2016. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KENJI L. HALEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAVYN OLIN, ALAN MONTGOMERY,
and DENNIS LARSON,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:15-cv-473-NJR-DGW
ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff, Kenji L. Haley:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Notice to All Parties (Motion to Confirm Filings) (Doc. 82);
Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 88);
Motion for Reception of Documents (Doc. 89);
Motion to Extend Time for Amended Complaint (Doc. 108);
Request for the Plaintiff’s Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Dennis
Larson, M.D. (Doc. 109);
6. Request for the Plaintiff’s Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Ravyn
Olin (Doc. 110);
7. Motion to Leave to Request for More Admissions (Doc. 111);
8. Request for Docket 15-473 (Doc. 112);
9. Motion to Strike Document from the Record (Doc. 116);
10. Request for the Plaintiff’s Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Dennis
Larson, M.D. (Doc. 118);
11. Request for the Plaintiff’s Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Ravyn
Olin (Doc. 119); and
12. Request for the Plaintiff’s Admissions be Admitted against Defendant Alan
Montgomery, M.D. (Doc. 120).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motions, and any responses filed thereto, and provides
the following rulings, as set forth below:
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES (MOTION TO CONFIRM FILINGS) (DOC. 82)
In his “Notice to All Parties”, which the Court construes as a motion to confirm filings,
Page 1 of 6
Plaintiff asks the Court to confirm whether it has received his responses to Defendants’ motions
for summary judgment (Docs. 67 and 70), as well as his statements of disputed facts. Plaintiff’s
Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ADVISED that the documents referenced in this motion were
filed on August 15, 2016 (see Docs. 77 and 78).
MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 88)
This Court previously denied Plaintiff’s requests for counsel finding that he had not met his
initial burden in attempting to recruit counsel on his own. The Court further noted that it was not
inclined to recruit counsel for Plaintiff as he appeared competent to litigate this matter on his own
given his ability to read, write, and understand the English language, and communicate effectively
and follow the directions of the Court (see Doc. 60). Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its
decision and appoint him counsel asserting that because this matter is complex and his ability to
engage in discovery is hindered by his incarceration and limited knowledge of the law and legal
resources, he will not be able to successfully litigate this matter.
First, the Court notes that Plaintiff has made sufficient efforts to recruit counsel on his
own, but to no avail (see Docs. 99 and 124). However, Plaintiff has not offered a substantial
reason for the Court to reconsider its previous ruling. The Court has again reviewed the docket in
this matter and finds that Plaintiff’s filings not only demonstrate his ability to read, write, and
understand the English language, but Plaintiff has also evidenced his ability to respond to various
filings, including motions for summary judgment, and communicate with the Court and opposing
counsel, and engage in discovery. While the Court notes Plaintiff’s complaints about his limited
library access, such circumstances can be accommodated by seeking reasonable extensions of time
to make necessary filings. Plaintiff is also advised to refer to the pro se handbook available from
the Court to assist in litigating this matter. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Page 2 of 6
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 88) is DENIED.
MOTION FOR RECEPTION OF DOCUMENTS (DOC. 89)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks for confirmation that his motion for appointment of counsel
and memorandum in support, and motion to reconsider judgment dated August 5, 2016, were filed.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ADVISED that due to an inadvertent error, his
motion for appointment of counsel, along with his memorandum in support, and motion for
reconsideration were received on August 5, 2016, but were not filed until September 2, 2016 (see
Docs. 87 and 88). However, when filed, the motions were dated back to August 5, 2016.
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 108)
Plaintiff asks the Court to grant him an extension of time to amend his complaint in light of
his pending appeal regarding the dismissal of Count Two, his state medical malpractice claim.
Plaintiff points to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the Court should
consider his appeal of the dismissal of Count Two as good cause to extend the October 21, 2016
deadline to seek leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court declines to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to move to amend his
complaint based on his pending appeal; however, the Court may reconsider its decision if
Plaintiff’s appeal is successful.
MOTIONS RELATED TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
(DOCS. 109, 110, 111, 118, 119, AND 120)
Plaintiff has filed a number of motions related to requests for admissions he either served,
or seeks to be served, on Defendants. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that pursuant to the
Scheduling Order entered on June 22, 2016, the parties were instructed that any merits discovery
should not be conducted until the question of whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative
Page 3 of 6
remedies within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act had been resolved (see Doc. 61,
p. 4). Despite the Court’s admonition against conducting merits discovery until the issue of
exhaustion had been resolved, Plaintiff served requests for admissions on Defendants on or about
August 15, 2016 (see Docs. 109 and 110). Defendants apparently did not respond and, on
September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions asking the Court to deem his requests to admit be
admitted against Defendants Larson and Olin (see Docs. 109 and 110). Plaintiff’s motions are
DENIED.
Although Defendants failed to respond within the thirty-day timeframe, merits
discovery, including requests to admit, was not to occur prior to resolution of the exhaustion issue.
As the Court did not enter an order regarding the issue of exhaustion on Plaintiff’s claims until
December 20, 2016, Plaintiff’s requests were premature. Moreover, the Court granted Defendant
Alan Montgomery’s motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on
September 26, 2016 (see Doc. 106). Pursuant to that Order, Defendant Montgomery’s responses
to Plaintiff’s merits-based discovery is not due until fourteen days after the Court ruled on the issue
of exhaustion (see id.).
On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions asking the Court again to deem his requests to
admit as admitted against Defendants Dr. Larson (Doc. 118), Olin (Doc. 119), and Dr.
Montgomery (Doc. 120). In these motions, Plaintiff contends that because Defendants failed to
respond to his requests to admit within fourteen days following the Pavey Hearing that was set for
September 28, 2016, they should be deemed admitted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 118, 119, and 120) are DENIED. As stated above,
merits-based discovery in this matter was stayed pending resolution of the issue of exhaustion.
On December 20, 2016, the Court issued its ruling on the exhaustion issue; accordingly, the Court
ORDERS that any responses to Plaintiff’s written, merits-based discovery are due by January 20,
Page 4 of 6
2017. Further, Defendant Dr. Larson need not respond to any pending discovery as he was
dismissed from this action.
On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to request for more admissions
(Doc. 111), asking the Court to grant him leave to serve twenty-two requests to admit on
Defendants. In support of his motion, Plaintiff indicates that he cannot fully prepare for trial
without leave to serve his twenty-two requests to admit. The Court has reviewed the requests
Plaintiff seeks to serve and finds that they will not unduly burden Defendants. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 111) is GRANTED and Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED LEAVE to serve
additional requests to admit on Defendants Dr. Montgomery and Olin, provided his additional
requests to admit be limited to those provided to the Court. Plaintiff is ADVISED that pursuant
to Local Rule 26.1(b)(1), his requests for admissions must be filed with the Court.
REQUEST FOR DOCKET 15-473 (DOC. 112)
On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a copy of the docket in this
case. While the Court is not generally inclined to provide courtesy copies of dockets in cases
pending in this District, especially without a particular reason, it will provide Plaintiff a one-time
courtesy copy of the docket in this matter as there were some issues with the filing of Documents
88 and 89 that occurred around the time Plaintiff filed his motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Request for Docket 15-473 (Doc. 112) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
send a copy of the docket sheet in this matter to Plaintiff’s most recent address on file.
MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENT FROM THE RECORD (DOC. 116)
In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant Dr. Alan Montgomery’s responses to his
requests for admissions as said responses were signed by Attorney Justin C. Moore prior to Mr.
Moore filing his notice of appearance on behalf of Defendant Montgomery with the Court.
Page 5 of 6
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Although all attorneys must file a written entry of appearance
before addressing the Court, the documents signed by Attorney Moore and served on Plaintiff
were not filed with the Court. Accordingly, Attorney Moore’s actions did not violate Local Rule
83.1(f) in that Attorney Moore did not address the Court prior to filing his notice of appearance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 28, 2016
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 6 of 6
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?