Boclair v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 248

ORDER DENYING 213 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Stanley Boclair; DENYING 239 MOTION for issuance of subpoena upon the courts review filed by Stanley Boclair; DENYING 240 MOTION to brief the court filed by Stanley Boclair; DENYING [245 ] MOTION to brief the court filed by Stanley Boclair; and GRANTING 244 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 242 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law filed by Stanley Boclair. Plaintiff's res ponse to 242 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law filed by Joshua Cornstubble, Jacqueline Lashbrook, John R. Baldwin, Philip Royster, Carson Winters, Justin Engelage, John Koch, Barry Myers, Michael Laminack, Ezra Hunter shall be filed by 9/5/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 7/13/2023. (nmf)

Case 3:18-cv-01188-RJD Document 248 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #1112

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STANLEY BOCLAIR,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-1188-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Stanley Boclair, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were
violated while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). In his complaint,
Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when members of the Orange
Crush tactical unit handcuffed him in a stress position, causing severe pain and injuring his left
shoulder. Plaintiff proceeds on ten counts alleging deliberate indifference under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants John Baldwin, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Barry Myers,
Michael Laminack, Philip Royster, Joshua Cornstubble, John Koch, Justin Engelage, Carson
Winters, and Ezra Hunter (see Doc. 63).
This matter is now before the Court to address a number of motions filed by Plaintiff. The
Court addresses each motion separately, as set forth below.
Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)(ii)(v)(vi) (Doc. 213)
In this motion, Plaintiff cites to Defendants’ counsel’s response to a motion to compel
wherein counsel indicated she could not verify whether she had received a discovery dispute letter
Page 1 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-01188-RJD Document 248 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #1113

sent by Plaintiff because she had not returned to the office after an extended leave of absence (see
Doc. 188 at ¶ 6). Plaintiff then asserts that “[c]ounsel was responding to a court imposed deadline,
where any ground (even one day) not stated in a timely objection is waived.” Plaintiff’s motion
and his requested relief are not clear. Insofar as Plaintiff is complaining that the Court denied his
motion to compel at Doc. 178 based on a representation of counsel made in response to the motion
to compel that was false, there is no merit to this claim and certainly no basis for sanctions under
Rule 37. Indeed, the Court declines to entertain this motion any further. Plaintiff’s motion for
sanctions is DENIED. As a final matter, the Court finds this motion is borderline frivolous. The
Court is not required to endure repetitive and frivolous filings by a prisoner, which tax the limited
resources of the Court and unfairly consume time the Court needs to serve other litigants seeking
relief in the federal system. See, e.g., Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315-16 (7th Cir.
1997) (applying monetary sanctions for duplicative filings in a habeas case).

Plaintiff is

ADVISED that if he continues to inundate the Court with frivolous filings, the Court will issue
whatever sanction may be warranted, which could include a monetary fine, a filing prohibition, or
dismissal of his case.
Motion for Issuance of Subpoena upon the Court’s Review (Doc. 239)
Plaintiff asks that the Court issue a subpoena directed to Jerry Witthoft seeking documents
from August 2017 concerning certain Defendants’ assignments. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Discovery in this matter closed on May 25, 2023. Plaintiff’s motion was filed on June 22, 2023
and, therefore, the discovery he seeks is out of time.
Motions to Brief the Court (Docs. 240, 245)
In these motions, Plaintiff asks that the Court “admonish” Defendants, their superiors,
colleagues, subordinates, and agents in lieu of him filing a motion for injunction so that they cease
Page 2 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-01188-RJD Document 248 Filed 07/13/23 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #1114

engaging in alleged acts of retaliation. More specifically, Plaintiff contends that on certain dates
in June 2023 actions were taken by Defendants and other staff members in retaliation for filing
this suit, including limiting certain portions of food items, withholding or destroying certain mail,
and limiting his law library access. Plaintiff, however, makes no mention of any documents he
believes he has not received in this case and, based on a review of his filings, it appears he has
received Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on June 26, 2023.
Insofar as Plaintiff’s complaints relate to concerns regarding the daily administration of
Menard Correctional Center, where Plaintiff is currently housed, the Court does not interfere with
the same. Insofar as Plaintiff is asserting he is facing retaliatory actions related to the filing of
this lawsuit, such claims are not a part of this case and, if Plaintiff believes he has another
constitutional claim, he may file a new and separate lawsuit. The Court reiterates that a review
of the record in this case does not reflect any inability of Plaintiff to file documents and responsive
briefs in this case.
Plaintiff’s Motions to Brief the Court (Docs. 240 and 245) are DENIED.
Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 244)
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2023 (Doc. 242). Plaintiff’s
response is currently due on July 31, 2023. In this motion, Plaintiff asserts he did not receive this
motion until July 5, 2023, and asks that he be granted 60 days from the date of receipt to file his
response because of issues accessing legal materials and the law library. Plaintiff’s motion is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by
September 5, 2023.

Page 3 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-01188-RJD Document 248 Filed 07/13/23 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #1115

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 13, 2023
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4