Black v. Brown et al

Filing 100

ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendation (Doc. 91 ): Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Pleadings (Doc. 75 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 7/24/2019. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RODNEY EUGENE BLACK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JILL MOORE, DAN WILLIAMS,
SHERIFF KEITH BROWN,
JILL BENNETT and BRIAN BENNETT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-CV-325-SMY-MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty (Doc. 91) recommending that the undersigned deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Pleadings (Doc. 75). Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Doc. 94). For
the following reasons, Judge Beatty’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
Background
Plaintiff Rodney Eugene Black, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they denied and/or delayed providing
treatment for his broken thumb. Plaintiff moves for sanctions, asserting that his attorney was
informed by a correctional officer that telephone conversations between Plaintiff and his attorney
"may be and may have been monitored." Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike
Defendants' pleadings, that judgment be entered in his favor and against the defendants, and that
a hearing be set for a prove-up of damages. Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's
Page 1 of 3

Motion supported by affidavits from each defendant and the Saline County 911 Coordinator, Tracy
Felty.
Judge Beatty determined that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary and ruled based on
the parties' briefs. His Report details the nature of the evidence presented by the parties as well as
the applicable law. Judge Beatty concluded that Plaintiff's allegations of eavesdropping were not
supported by the record and that the harsh sanction of striking Defendants' pleadings was not
warranted. Accordingly, Judge Beatty recommended the undersigned deny Plaintiff's Motion.
Since Plaintiff filed a timely objection, the undersigned must undertake a de novo review
of Judge Beatty’s recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDILLR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also
Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). De novo review requires the district judge
to “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made” and make
a decision “based on an independent review of the evidence and arguments without giving any
presumptive weight to the magistrate judge’s conclusion.” Harper, 824 F.Supp. at 788 (citing 12
Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992
Pocket Part)); Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court “may
accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s recommended decision.” Harper, 824 F. Supp. at
788. Consistent with these standards, the Court has reviewed Judge Beatty’s Report de novo.
Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike from a pleading “any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A court may also exercise its inherent
powers to “fashion . . . appropriate sanction[s] for conduct which abuses the judicial process.”
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991).

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff contends the affidavit of Tracy Felty confirms that conversations between Plaintiff
and his attorney were recorded by the County. Felty averred that all telephone lines in the Saline
County Jail are on a secured line that is recorded through the Saline County 911 system. She also
states she is the only person with the password to listen to any of Plaintiff's telephone calls, that
she has never listened to Plaintiff's telephone conversations, and that she has not provided the
password to anyone else.
Prison officials may monitor and even tape an inmate's telephone conversations with an
attorney “only if such taping does not substantially affect the prisoner's right to confer with
counsel.” Tucker v. Randall, 948 F.2d 388, 391 (7th Cir. 1991). Here, each Defendant and Felty
averred that they have never listened to any telephone conversations made by Plaintiff. Plaintiff
has produced no evidence that anyone has listened to his conversations with his attorney or that
his rights to confer with counsel have been affected.
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Beatty’s findings, analysis and conclusions, and
adopts his Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
(Doc. 75) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 24, 2019

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3