Norfleet v. IDOC et al

Filing 119

ORDER DENYING 106 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING 106 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/23/2017. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARC NORFLEET,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-1279-SMY-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Marc Norfleet’s Motion for Reconsideration
and Objections to Court’s Doc. 104 (Doc. 106). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED.
Familiarity with the posture of this case is assumed (and is fully laid out in the Court’s June
13, 2017 Order, Doc. 104).
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff objects to this Court’s June 13, 2017 Order
denying his motion to amend his complaint, certify a class action, and appoint new counsel.
Although Plaintiff’s filing includes many irrelevant statements and is at times unclear (and at other
times, combative), the Court attempts to address each argument in turn, as set forth below.
First, the Court discerns that Plaintiff believes he was misled that his previously-appointed
counsel’s duty was to assist Plaintiff in bringing a class action. Plaintiff’s belief was misguided
and unfounded. A review of the docket evidences no indication that the purpose of appointing
Plaintiff counsel to this matter was to assist him in setting forth a class action lawsuit. In the
Court’s Order appointing counsel, it noted that Plaintiff is a disabled inmate proceeding on an
Page 1 of 4

Eighth Amendment and ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims that may require significant
discovery. The Court also recognized that Plaintiff’s filings were difficult to comprehend and
demonstrated Plaintiff’s inability to communicate effectively. Nowhere in the Order does the
Court contemplate a potential class action or direct counsel to assist in litigating the same.
Plaintiff also takes issue with the Court allowing counsel to withdraw after conducting a
telephonic conference with counsel in which Plaintiff was not in attendance. Plaintiff asserts that
counsel was allowed to withdraw without merit as counsel only sought to withdraw because he did
not want the workload of handling a class action.

Attached to Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is a letter dated February 6, 2017 directed to Plaintiff from former counsel.
Although the document is marked “confidential attorney-client communication”, Plaintiff has
clearly waived any attorney-client privilege by publicly filing it with his motion. In this letter,
counsel indicates that “[o]ur reason for withdrawing is based upon your request during our
February 6, 2017 phone conversation that we withdraw since we will not represent you in a class
action” (Doc. 106-2, p. 7). It is apparent from this letter that there was a significant breakdown of
the attorney-client relationship insofar as Plaintiff and his counsel had different views on how this
matter should be handled. In the Court’s Order appointing counsel, it clearly stated that counsel
“has an obligation under the rules to refrain from filing frivolous pleadings” and, “[a]s a
consequence, counsel will likely, from time to time, advise Plaintiff against taking a certain course
of action.” (See Doc. 76). The Court also indicated that “[i]f Plaintiff wants to be represented by
counsel, he will have to cooperate fully with counsel” (Id.). Plaintiff cannot ask that counsel
withdraw because they will not pursue a class action lawsuit (particularly in light of the Court’s
admonition that counsel be sure to refrain from filing frivolous pleadings), and then complain
when counsel is allowed to withdraw and the Court declines to appoint new counsel.
Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its denial of his motion to amend the complaint
and bring forth a class action lawsuit. In particular, Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s order
addressed the wrong amended complaint. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint submitted in conjunction with Document 87 (submitted on March 10, 2017) while
Plaintiff asserts the relevant proposed amended complaint was filed in conjunction with his motion
at Document 53 (submitted on October 13, 2016). A review of the proposed amended complaint
submitted in accordance with Plaintiff’s motion at Document 53 in October, 2016 demonstrates its
obvious similarity to the proposed amended complaint submitted in March, 2017. Indeed, the
October, 2016 proposed amended pleading includes the same substantive content as the later
proposed amended pleading, but does not include any reference to a class. Accordingly, the
Court does not find that the October 2016 proposed amended pleading clearly sets forth the claims
Plaintiff is attempting to bring.
Insofar as Plaintiff complains about the overcrowding of the ADA cells at Pinckneyville in
his motion, Plaintiff has not requested any specific relief in this motion tied to this issue and the
Court reminds Plaintiff that these issues are the basis of the claims pending in this lawsuit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided a significant
reason for the Court to reconsider its previous ruling on Plaintiff’s requests for new counsel and
motion to amend the complaint and proceed as a class action. Accordingly, Plaintiff Marc
Norfleet’s Motion for Reconsideration and Objections to Court’s Doc. 104 (Doc. 106) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 4

DATED: August 23, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4