Howell v. Butler et al

Filing 144

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 133 MOTION for Leave to File to File Signature Page to Declaration MOTION for Reconsideration re 124 Order,,, Terminate Motions,, 106 Sealed Response to Motion,, the Court's Memorandum and Order Concerning Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Larry Howell. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 8/28/2019. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY HOWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE INC. and
DR. JOHN TROST,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-160-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Signature Page
to Declaration and Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Memorandum and Order Concerning
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 133). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff Larry Howell, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights
were violated while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Following
threshold review, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the following Counts:
Count 1:

Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s serious
medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when they delayed
and/or denied appropriate treatment for his knee injury.

Count 2:

Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at Menard, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when they
placed him in a fifth-floor cell and denied him the use of any assistive
medical devices when he was unable to walk.

Count 3:

Defendant IDOC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)
and/or Rehabilitation Act when it denied him the use of any assistive
Page 1 of 4

medical devices while he was unable to walk, thereby denying him access
to meals and medical services.
On April 25, 2019, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendants Fe Fuentes, Susan Kirk, John Baldwin (official capacity), Clifford Bradley, Kimberly
Butler, Salvador Godinez, Louis Shicker, and David Tindall (Doc. 124). Following the Court’s
summary judgment rulings, Plaintiff is proceeding to trial on Count One against Defendants Dr.
Trost and Wexford.
Plaintiff filed his motion now before the Court on June 10, 2019 (Doc. 133). In his motion,
Plaintiff explains the signature page to his Declaration was inadvertently not attached and filed
with the Court. As a result, the Court did not consider it in its Order. Plaintiff further asserts
that because his response, including his Declaration, was filed under seal, he could not access the
Court-filed documents to confirm the inclusion of his signature page.
Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s motion on June 24, 2019 (Doc. 135) and July 1, 2019
(Doc. 138).

Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request, arguing it would result in substantial

prejudice and undue burden. Defendants explain they have dedicated substantial resources to
their trial preparation and reconsidering summary judgment may obfuscate such efforts.
Defendants further remark that the claims in Plaintiff’s Declaration are substantially the same as
those contained in Plaintiff’s complaint and response to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Accordingly, Defendants indicate that nothing contained in Plaintiff’s Declaration
impacts the Court’s summary judgment order.
Plaintiff’s request for leave to file his signature page to his Declaration is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file his signature page by separate docket entry, linked to his responses to
Defendants’ summary judgment motions at Docs. 106 and 107, by August 30, 2019.
Page 2 of 4

Although Plaintiff does not specify which Federal Rule his motion to reconsider is brought
pursuant to, the Court finds it to be a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule
60(b) permits relief from a judgment for a number of reasons including mistake, fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party, or “any other reason that justifies relief.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).

It is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted in exceptional

circumstances. United States v. 8136 S. Dobson St., Chicago Ill., 125 F.3d 1076, 1082 (7th Cir.
1997). Motions under Rule 60(b) must be brought “within a reasonable time.” FED. R. CIV. P.
60(c). “What constitutes ‘reasonable time’ depends upon the facts of each case, taking into
consideration the interest in finality, the reason for the delay, the practical ability of the litigant to
learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and the consideration of prejudice if any to other parties.”
Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601, 610 (7th Cir. 1986).
In consideration of these factors, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion was not filed within a
reasonable time. The error Plaintiff seeks to correct was clearly identified on page two of the
Court’s Order on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (see Doc. 124). Said Order was
filed on April 25, 2019. The error Plaintiff seeks to correct is simple and obvious, and he should
have sought to rectify it immediately.

However, Plaintiff did not file his motion for

reconsideration until June 10, 2019 (Doc. 133). In the intervening time, this Court held a final
pretrial conference (see Doc. 128), and the parties submitted various materials for trial, including
motions in limine and Rule 26 disclosures. Plaintiff failed to address the issue concerning his
request for reconsideration with the Court during the final pretrial conference. Thus, the parties
have spent considerable time at this point preparing for trial, and Defendants would suffer
significant prejudice if the Court were to reconsider its Order.
Page 3 of 4

Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Declaration does not set forth any new and material
information that has not already been addressed and considered by the Court. As such, even if
the Court were to reconsider its previous Order, consideration of Plaintiff’s Declaration would
have no effect on its ultimate decision.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 28, 2019
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4