Jellis v. Harrington et al

Filing 77

ORDER STRIKING 65 , DENYING 67 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Jerry Jellis, DENYING 68 MOTION to Compel filed by Jerry Jellis, DENYING 66 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Jerry Jellis, GRANTING 76 MOTION to Continue filed by Dr Shearing. Pavey Evidentiary Hearing RESET for 7/7/2016 at 10:30 AM in East St. Louis Courthouse before Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/20/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
R. HARRINGTON, LT. TOURVILLE, R.)
DAVIS, C/O HALE, C.O LINDENBERG,)
TIMOTHY VEATH, JASON HART, AMY)
)
LANG, and DR. SHEARING,
)
)
Defendants.
JERRY JELLIS,

Case No. 3:15-cv-630-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Sur-Reply brief filed by Plaintiff, Jerry Jellis, on
January 25, 2016 (Doc. 65), the Motions for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff on January 25, 2016
(Docs. 66 and 67), the Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on February 18, 2016 (Doc. 68), and the
Motion to Continue filed by Dr. Shearing on June 17, 2016 (Doc. 76).
The sur-reply brief (Doc. 65) is hereby STRICKEN. Local Rule 7.1(c) provides that
“[u]nder no circumstances will sur-reply briefs be accepted.”
Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions (Doc. 66) is DENIED. Plaintiff is informed that the
Defendants listed in his motion have not filed a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion, nor
are they required to file such a motion. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks judgment on the issue of
exhaustion, he must file a Motion for Summary Judgment supported by evidence.
Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions (Doc. 67) is DENIED. Plaintiff represents, and
Defendants Harrington, Tourville, Davis, Veath, Hale, Lindenberg, Hart, and Lang admit, that the
listed Defendants failed to provide initial disclosures by the December 21, 2015 deadline (Doc.

Page 1 of 3

42). Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) which provides
for a variety of monetary and non-monetary sanctions. In a tardy response (for which no excuse is
offered), Defendants represent that they inadvertently failed to provide initial disclosures due to a
change in attorney and lack of awareness of the new attorney that the disclosures had not been
served. Defendants further represent that they served initial disclosures on April 13, 2016.
While the Court finds Defendants’ dilatory discovery practice to be troubling, sanctions
will not issue at this time. Plaintiff has shown no prejudice that has resulted from the tardy initial
disclosures nor has he shown that he has incurred any damages or expenses as a result. The
discovery deadline in this matter is September 30, 2016, which should afford ample time to
conduct additional discovery beyond the initial disclosures. However Defendants are hereby
WARNED that the failure to respond to discovery in a timely manner may result in the exclusion
of untimely discovery from the trial in this matter. In addition, the failure to timely file a
response to motions may result in a finding that the motion has been admitted as provided by Local
Rule 7.1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. The Court will not manage the prison’s law
library nor disturb the schedule that prison officials have for law library visits. The prison is in
the best position to determine when and for how long an inmate can access the law library.

If

Plaintiff requires additional time to conduct research in order to respond to a pending motion, he
may file a motion for extension of time.
Defendant’s motion to continue is GRANTED.

The Pavey Evidentiary hearing is

RESET to July 7, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff to appear by video-conference.

Page 2 of 3

Finally, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to modify the docket sheet to reflect the true full
spelling of Defendants’ names as set forth in Defendants’ Answers (Docs. 30, 47, and 53).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 20, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3