Gomez v. Reihert et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING 16 MOTION to Compel, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Joshua Shoenbeek, Richard Harrington, Michael Atchison, Barbara Muller. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide full and complete responses to Defendants' interrogatories and requests for production of documents served on August 10, 2016 by January 20, 2017. Plaintiff is further ORDERED to provide the initial disclosures list ed by the Court in the Scheduling and Discovery Order (Doc. 15) to Defendants by January 20, 2017. Plaintiff is WARNED that his failure to abide by the Court's Order and provide said responses may result in the imposition of sanctions, in cluding dismissal of this lawsuit. In light of this Order, the deadline for filing dispositive motions regarding the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies is continued to February 6, 2017. ORDER DENYING 21 MOTION to Compel filed b y Fernando Gomez and 19 MOTION for Order to filed by Fernando Gomez; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 18 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Fernando Gomez; and GRANTING 20 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Joshua Shoenbeek, Richard Harrington, Michael Atchison, Barbara Muller. Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's requests for production of documents are due by February 3, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 1/5/2017. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FERNANDO GOMEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA SHOENBEEK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-291-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the following motions:
1. Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery and Extension of Time to File
Dispositive Motion on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
filed by Defendants on October 14, 2016 (Doc. 16);
2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Memorandum in Support filed by
Plaintiff on November 16, 2016 (Doc. 18);
3. Motion to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider filed by Plaintiff on
November 16, 2016 (Doc. 19);
4. Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Production
of Documents filed by Defendants on December 15, 2016 (Doc. 20); and
5. Motion to Compel Ruling filed by Plaintiff on December 29, 2016 (Doc. 21).
The Court has carefully reviewed the pending motions and finds as follows:
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE
MOTION ON THE ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (DOC. 16)
In this motion, Defendants assert they sent Plaintiff interrogatories and requests to produce
related to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies on August 10, 2016 and, despite
sending Plaintiff a “golden rule” letter, he has not yet provided any response. Defendants also
Page 1 of 4

indicate they have not yet received Plaintiff’s initial disclosures that were due by September 16,
2016 (see Doc. 15). Defendants argue they are prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to provide initial
disclosures and discovery responses as they are unable to make a determination as to whether to
file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. As such, Defendants ask the
Court to issue an order compelling Plaintiff to provide his initial disclosures and discovery
responses, and seek an extension of time in which to file a motion for summary judgment on the
issue of exhaustion. Defendants’ motion (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, responses to interrogatories and
requests to produce are due 30 days after service. As such, Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’
August 10, 2016 discovery requests were due on September 9, 2016. Plaintiff’s responses are,
therefore, overdue. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide full and complete responses
to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents dated August 10, 2016 by
January 20, 2017. Plaintiff is further ORDERED to provide the initial disclosures listed by the
Court in the Scheduling and Discovery Order (Doc. 15) to Defendants by January 20, 2017.
Plaintiff is WARNED that his failure to abide by this Court’s Order and provide said responses
may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this lawsuit. In light of this
Order, the deadline for filing dispositive motions on the issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is continued to February 6, 2017.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 18)
Plaintiff again asks the Court to appoint him counsel in this matter citing his limited ability
to communicate with witnesses, limited access to the law library, and limited knowledge of the law
and ability to read and understand English. This Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for
appointment of counsel, noting that Plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to recruit counsel on
Page 2 of 4

his own and finding Plaintiff competent to litigate this matter. Although the Court now finds
Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that he made reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to
recruit counsel, he has not provided the Court with a substantial reason to reconsider its previous
ruling. While the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is a Spanish speaking litigant, his filings in this
matter demonstrate his ability to read, write, and understand the English language, and follow the
directions of the Court. Moreover, the Court finds that recruitment of counsel at this point is
premature as the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies has not yet been considered.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 18) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court leaves open the possibility of reconsidering its ruling following a
determination on the issue of exhaustion.
MOTION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DOC. 19) AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 21)
In these motions, Plaintiff asks the Court to make a ruling on his motion to reconsider the
Court’s screening order filed in June, 2016 (Doc. 10). Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff
is ADVISED that the Court is aware of his pending motion to reconsider and will issue a ruling on
said motion as soon as practicable.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. 20)
In this motion, Defendants ask the Court for an extension of time of thirty days to respond
to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents that was served on November 15, 2016.
Counsel for Defendants indicates that he requires additional time to obtain the relevant responsive
documents and confer with Defendants due to a heavy caseload.

Defendants’ motion is

GRANTED. Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents are due
by February 3, 2017. Defendants are ADVISED, however, that merits discovery may be stayed
Page 3 of 4

in this action if they file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 5, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4