Thornton v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 188

ORDER: The 171 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint and the 187 Motion Directing the Court to File Supplemental Complaint are DENIED. The 183 Motion for Reconsideration is also DENIED. The 182 Motion for Status is GRANTED. Currently, discovery is still being conducted and must be completed by October 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Thornton a copy of the docket sheet in this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/4/2020. (jrj)

Case 3:17-cv-01296-NJR Document 188 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #954

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES E. THORNTON,
#Y19115,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-01296-NJR

JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the motion for leave to file supplemental
complaint (Doc. 171), the motion directing the court to file supplemental complaint
(Doc. 187), the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 183), and the motion for status (Doc. 182)
filed by Plaintiff Charles Thornton.
Thornton has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint stating that
since filing the complaint, he has “determined that Rebecca Naugle and Jacqueline
Lashbrook should be included” as defendants. (Doc. 171, p. 1). The proposed
supplemental complaint adds allegations that Rebecca Naugle and Warden Frank
Lawrence denied his requests to receive a book titled “Current Medical Diagnosis and
Treatment 2016” and an issue of the Phat Puffs magazine around the end of April or
beginning of May 2019. The proposed supplemental complaint also names Jacqueline
Lashbrook as a defendant in her individual capacity1 and modifies the claims for relief.

1

Jacqueline Lashbrook, the warden at Menard, is currently a defendant in this action in her official capacity

Page 1 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-01296-NJR Document 188 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #955

Because Thornton has filed his motion after the deadline to add parties and claims
established in the scheduling order, he must first show good cause under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order before the Court considers
whether justice requires leave to supplement. See Trustmark Ins. Co. v. General & Cologne
Life Re of America, 424 F.3d 542, 553 (7th Cir. 2005). When determining good cause “the
primary consideration for district courts is the diligence of the party seeking
amendment.” Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F. 3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2011).
Here, Thornton has requested to supplement the complaint over a year following
the deadline to amend set by the Court. (See Doc. 39, p. 3). The Court previously advised
Thornton that the deadline set in the scheduling order for amending the complaint to add
new defendants or new claims was January 18, 2019, and that good cause must be shown
in order to amend the scheduling order. (Doc. 39; Doc. 119, p. 3-4). While the allegations
against Naugle and Lawrence occurred after the deadline, Thornton waited a year since
the alleged incidences to file the current motion. Other than stating he has now
determined that Rebecca Naugle, Jacqueline Lashbrook, and Frank Lawrence should be
individually liable for constitutional violations and included in this lawsuit, Thornton
has failed to explain why he has not attempted to file his motion sooner or ask for an
extension of time. Accordingly, the Court finds that Thornton did not act with diligence
in attempting to adhere to the deadline set in the scheduling order and does not find good
cause for allowing Thornton to supplement the third amended complaint. Thus, the

only for the purpose of implementing any injunctive relief that may be ordered. (Docs. 10, 50).

Page 2 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-01296-NJR Document 188 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #956

motion for leave to file supplement complaint (Doc. 171) and the motion requesting the
Court to instantly file the proposed supplemental complaint (Doc. 187) 2 are DENIED.
Thornton also asks the Court to reconsider its order denying his request to arrange
depositions on his behalf. (Doc. 183). He argues that because he is representing himself,
he should be allowed reimbursement of expenses from the District Court Fund, as is
allowed to pro bono counsel under Local Rule 83.13. See SDIL-LR 83.1. The District Court
Fund is limited, however, and provides reimbursement for the expenses incurred by an
attorney representing an indigent plaintiff for free. Thornton is representing himself, and
there “is no government fund from which a pro se litigant may recover [his] litigation
expenses.” Wagner v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., No. 84 C 9060, 1986 WL 12605,
at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 1986). See also See Stewart v. Walker, No. 05-1210, 2007 WL 3348359,
at * 2 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2007) (quoting Smith v. Campagna, No. 94 C 7628, 1996 WL 364770,
at * 1 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 1996) (“court has no authority to finance or pay for a party’s
discovery expenses even though the party has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. Sec.1915(a).”).
Thus, having found no error of law or fact, and no compelling reason to reconsider
its prior order, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 183) is DENIED. See United States v.
Harris, 531 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2008) (district courts may reconsider previous rulings
in the same ligation “if there is a compelling reason”) (citations omitted); Rothwell Cotton

“The decision to grant or deny a motion to file an amended pleading is a matter purely within the sound
discretion of the district court[,]” and thus, the motion is not automatically granted and the proposed
supplement filed solely because Defendants failed to file a response. Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc., 635 F.3d
870, 875 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Brunt v. Serv. Emp. Int’l Union, 284 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2002)).

2

Page 3 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-01296-NJR Document 188 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #957

Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987).
Finally, the Court GRANTS the motion for status (Doc. 182). Currently, discovery
is still being conducted and must be completed by October 9, 2020. (See Doc. 160, p. 2).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Thornton a copy of the docket sheet in this
matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 4, 2020
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4