Booker v. McCarty et al

Filing 107

ORDER DENYING 87 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING 88 Motion for Reconsideration; and DENYING 89 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 3/8/2018. (nmf)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIE BOOKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LESLIE MCCARTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-194-SMY-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the following motions filed by Plaintiff Willie Booker:
1. Motion to Reconsider November 3, 2017 Order Allowing Defendants to Redact
Anthony’s Report If It Contains Sensitive Information (Doc. 87);
2. Motion to Reconsider Court’s November 3, 2017 Decision to Deny Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File a Sixth Amended Complaint (Doc. 88); and
3. Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce the Documents that Plaintiff
Requested in Plaintiff’s Sixth Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 89).
The Court has reviewed the motions and any responses thereto, and sets forth its rulings
below.
Motions to Reconsider November 3, 2017 Order (Docs. 87 and 88)
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider two rulings set forth in its November 3, 2017 Order
(Doc. 86). In its November 3, 2017 Order, the Court required Defendants to produce the report
prepared by Internal Affairs Officer Anthony in February 2015. The undersigned indicated that if
portions of the report contained sensitive information, such information could be redacted if it
would pose an institutional security risk. Plaintiff now asks that the Court reconsider its decision
and perform an in camera review of the document to determine if the redactions (if any) are
Page 1 of 4

appropriate.

On December 1, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Compliance (Doc. 93)

explaining that they had conducted a search for any investigative report produced by Sgt. Anthony
related to Plaintiff in February 2015, but had not discovered any such report aside from an email
sent by Anthony on February 26, 2015. Defendants have previously produced the email to
Booker. The Court has reviewed the redactions in the email and finds that they were appropriate.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 87) is DENIED.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its denial of his motion for leave to file a sixth
amended complaint (Doc. 88). In its November 3, 2017 Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s
proposed amended complaint attempted to add multiple new claims, substitute a defendant, and
add a new defendant. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend because of the undue delay in
filing (the deadline to file amended complaints had passed more than a year prior to the filing of his
motion), and because of Plaintiff’s “three striker” status, which necessarily causes the Court to be
reluctant to expand the scope of this lawsuit.
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its decision because the scheduling and discovery
order’s deadline to seek leave to amend was limited to identifying any John Doe defendants, which
his proposed sixth amended complaint does not do. Plaintiff also indicates that he has corrected
the deficiencies the Court previously identified in his equal protection and due process claims, and
he seeks leave to add these claims, as well as new allegations demonstrating the ongoing severe
emotional distress he has endured as a result of Defendants’ conduct. While the Court is mindful
of Plaintiff’s arguments, they are unavailing. Aside from Plaintiff’s failure to adequately cure the
deficiencies in his proposed due process and equal protection claims, the overriding issue is
Plaintiff’s status as a “three striker.” Because of this classification, Plaintiff may only proceed in
this action in forma pauperis on claims in which he alleges a serious physical injury is imminent or
Page 2 of 4

occurring at the time the complaint is filed. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir.
2003). Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint makes no such allegations with respect to the
claims he seeks to add. Further, the proposed allegations demonstrating the severe distress
Plaintiff is enduring are unnecessary to support the claims that are proceeding in this action. For
these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 88) is DENIED.
Motion to Compel (Doc. 89)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant Cowan to provide documents
responsive to paragraph 2 of his Sixth Request for Production of Documents, which is set forth as
follows: “A copy of the documents Defendant Cowan relied upon to make her recommendation to
deny Plaintiff Booker November 2015 protective custody request” (see Doc. 89, p. 7). In
response to this request, Defendant Cowan indicated that she lacked “present recollection of the
documents she reviewed in making her recommendation to deny Offender Booker’s October 13,
2015 Protective Custody Request,” and explained that “[i]nvestigating protective custody requests
is a case-specific process, which may involve reviewing master file documents, prior protective
custody requests and decisions, and IDOC Offender Tracking System/Offender 360 Information”
(Id. at 10). Defendant objected to the request to the extent it sought production of Plaintiff’s
entire master file and OTS/Offender 360 Information.
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff asserts that this response conflicts with Defendant
Cowan’s response to paragraph one of his Fourth Set of Interrogatories. In that request, Plaintiff
asked Defendant Cowan to “[s]tate and identify the exact information [she] relied upon to deny
plaintiff Booker November 2015 protective custody request” (Id. at 13). In response to this
request, Defendant Cowan indicated that in coming to her recommendation she interviewed
Booker and investigated his claims by reviewing his past requests for protective custody and the
Page 3 of 4

subsequent decisions on those requests, and she also indicated she searched available IDOC
Offender Tracking System information and master file documents about Booker and the inmates
he listed on his protective custody request as being enemies.
In response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant Cowan indicated she recognized the
discrepancy in her responses and had requested the documents referenced in paragraph two of
Plaintiff’s sixth request for the production of documents and would supplement her response upon
receipt of the same. Defendant provided her supplemental response on December 1, 2017 and
produced the “type of documents she generally reviews when making” her recommendation on
protective custody requests, although she maintained that she lacked present recollection of the
exact documents she reviewed in making her recommendation. The Court has reviewed the
documents produced by Defendant Cowan and finds that they are responsive to Plaintiff’s request.
Further, insofar as Defendant did not produce Plaintiff’s master file and OTS/Offender 360
information, the Court sustains Defendant’s objection to producing the same. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 89) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 8, 2018
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4