Hoskins v. Swisher et al

Filing 188

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion and Notice to the Court (Doc. 187) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/27/2024. (cka)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA HOSKINS #R54570,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHAD WALL, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 20-CV-522-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Joshua Hoskins, formerly an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although he had agreed to a global
mediation of this and other cases that he had filed while incarcerated, he has changed his mind.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Court to Cancel the Settlement Conference (Doc. 185), which was
denied, and now a Motion and Notice to the Court (Doc. 187) that is before the Court.
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants will not meet his demand and that he does not want to
discuss the possibility of lowering it with a Magistrate Judge (Doc. 187, p. 1). This Court has the
inherent authority to order the parties to engage in settlement conferences. Goss Graphics Sys. v.
DEV Indus., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001). See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5). And the reasons
proffered by Plaintiff for not engaging in settlement are not extraordinary, as the mediating parties
are usually at an impasse and require judicial intervention to reach a resolution: “The essence of
settlement is compromise. Each side gains the benefit of immediate resolution of the litigation and
some measure of vindication for its position while foregoing the opportunity to achieve an
unmitigated victory.” E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff has not indicated that his demand number has a comparative basis, such as special

Page 1 of 2

damages, similar jury verdicts, policy limits, liens, or previous settlements, that could impede
settlement. Additionally, as noted in the Order dated March 19, 2024 (Doc. 186), this Court has
expanded resources to set a global mediation of Plaintiff’s prisoner cases, and to allow Plaintiff to
unilaterally cancel it would adversely affect this Court’s docket.
Likewise, Plaintiff asserts that he has been having difficulty with traveling to East St. Louis
and prosecuting his case with the demands of a possible job, medical appointments, and owed
filing fees incurred in other cases (Doc. 187, p. 2). As an initial matter, this Court notes that any
trial would be in Benton, Illinois and not in East St. Louis, Illinois. And Plaintiff is not exempt
from having to expend time and resources to litigate his case. In re TCI Ltd., Needler & Assocs.,
Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 446 (7th Cir. 1985) (American Rule requires “each party to bear its own fees
and costs” and “courts will ensure that each party really does bear the costs”). If Plaintiff is
struggling to balance his post-incarceration life with the litigation demands of the lawsuits that he
had filed, that may be even more reason to settle and move on. This Court will not excuse Plaintiff
from any in-person appearances and any failure to appear or to prosecute his case could result in
its dismissal. Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466, 468 (7th Cir. 1994) (dismissing civil rights
action for failure to appear for trial).
Finally, while this Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s alleged medical issues, it will not
grant any continuances at this time without corroborating medical documentation (that is absent
from this motion).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion and Notice to the Court (Doc. 187) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 27, 2024
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2