Peters v. Butler et al

Filing 77

ORDER MOOTING: 30 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Scott Peters, 55 MOTION for Entry of Default filed by Scott Peters, 56 MOTION for Leave to File Defendant Baldwin's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint Instanter filed by Illinois Department of Corrections' Director, 64 MOTION for Leave to File Defendant Baldwin's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint Instanter filed by Illinois Department of Corrections' Director, and 68 MOT ION to Quash filed by Scott Peters; STRIKING: 36 Response filed by Scott Peters, 58 Response filed by Scott Peters, and 76 Exhibit filed by Scott Peters; and, DENYING 38 MOTION filed by Scott Peters. This matter is STAYED pending 28 U.S.C. 1915A screening of the Amended Complaint (which is to be filed by the Clerk forthwith). Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/23/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
K BUTLER, DR. TROST, and ILLINOIS)
DEPARTMENT
OF
CORRECTIONS’)
)
DIRECTOR,
)
)
Defendants.
SCOTT PETERS,

Case No. 3:16-cv-382-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 30).1 The Motion
was filed within 21 days of the service of a responsive pleading, namely the Answer filed on May
3, 2016 (Doc. 25). As such, Plaintiff is permitted to file the Amended Complaint as a matter of
course as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) and the Motion is MOOT. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the Amended Complaint submitted on May 6, 2016.
The Amended Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, however, is subject to
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A because it is a complaint “in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer . . . .” Therefore, this matter is STAYED pending
such screening which would identify cognizable claims and those that are frivolous, malicious, or
which fail to state a claim. No responsive pleadings shall be filed, nor shall discovery be
conducted, until the Court has screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.2
1

Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint earlier, on April 25, 2016 (Doc. 17). That motion ran
afoul of Local Rule 15.1 because Plaintiff had not submitted a proposed amended complaint (Doc.
20).
2

Parties are nonetheless informed that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (Doc. 12) is still
Page 1 of 2

In light of this finding, various motions related to the filing of answers are MOOT (Docs.
55, 56, 64, and 68). In addition, Plaintiff’s “Response” (Docs. 36 and 58) to Defendants Trost’s
and Butler’s Answers (Docs. 25 and 45) are hereby STRICKEN.

Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 7 does not recognize a pleading that is a response to an answer and the Court has
ordered no such response. Plaintiff’s “Special Motion” (Doc. 38) is DENIED. Plaintiff states
that he is being “purposefully” restricted by Defendants from accessing legal material and visiting
the commissary to purchase writing supplies and that they are interfering with his mail. Since
filing the motion, Plaintiff has filed a reply to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 40)
which contains citations to case authority, a response to a notice issued by the Court (Doc. 47), an
objection to an Order (Doc. 54), various other motions (Docs. 55, 50, and 68), and various other
filings. Plaintiff clearly has access to legal and writing material and any interference of delay in
his mail is not delaying any of his filings. Finally, the “Exhibit A” filed by Plaintiff on August 22,
2016 (Doc. 76) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff shall file all exhibits with related motions. If he seeks
to file additional exhibits after a motion (or response) is filed, he must seek leave and must indicate
to which motion or response an exhibit is relevant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 23, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

under consideration and a Report and Recommendation will be issued shortly.
Page 2 of 2