Hoskins v. Rodman et al

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING 59 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Joshua Hoskins, 57 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Joshua Hoskins, 65 MOTION for the Court to Consider when Ruling on the Defendants in its Entirety Dispositive Motions on the Issue of Exhaustion filed by Joshua Hoskins, and 69 MOTION to Supplement filed by Joshua Hoskins. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 9/15/2022. (nmf)

Case 3:20-cv-01068-RJD Document 73 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #1943

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEXANDER RODMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 20-cv-1068-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the following motions filed by Plaintiff Joshua Hoskins:
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response (Doc. 57), Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental Response (Doc. 59), Motion for the Court to Consider when Ruling on the
Defendants in Its Entirety Dispositive Motions on the Issues of Exhaustion (Doc. 65), and Motion
for the Court to Accept Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendants’ Dispositive Motions on
the Issue of Exhaustion (Doc. 69). For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are DENIED.
Factual Background
Plaintiff Joshua Hoskins, 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 Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges from August 7 through October 9, 2020,
defendants threatened to place him in segregation on false disciplinary charges to prevent him
from being transferred to Dixon Correctional Center if he did not refuse his psychotropic
medications and telepsychology appointments. Plaintiff further alleges he was assaulted by
Page 1 of 6

Case 3:20-cv-01068-RJD Document 73 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #1944

Defendant Cacioppo on August 21, 2020.
Plaintiff’s complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and he proceeds in this
action on the following claims:
Count 1:

First Amendment retaliation claim against all Defendants.

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant
Cacioppo.

Count 3:

Eighth Amended deliberate indifference to a serious medical
condition against all Defendants.

As to Counts 1 and 3, the following individuals are named as defendants: Alexander
Rodman, Joseph Dudek, Lt. Shirley, Sgt. Peek, C/O Michael Bailey, C/O Lueker, C/O Tomshack,
C/O Bell, Lt. Wall, Lt. Wangler, C/O Vandekeekhove, C/O Hale, C/O Hagston, Lt. Baker, C/O
Swisher, Sgt. Grove, C/O Hankins, Sgt. Bryant, Major Lively, Sgt. Porter, Don Wanack, C/O
Schlott, C/O Jurkowski, Lt. Petitjean, Lt. Johnson, C/O Hermann, Sgt. Oleary, C/O Brock, Sgt.
Bartolotti, C/O Mays, C/O Cacioppo, Nurse Jana Rueter, and C/O Summers. Of these 33
defendants, 32 are employed by the IDOC, and one, Jana Rueter, is employed by Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., a private company that provides healthcare to inmates of the IDOC.
Defendant Rueter and the IDOC Defendants filed motions for summary judgment arguing
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Docs. 48 and 52).
Plaintiff filed a timely response on March 8, 2022 (Doc. 56). Plaintiff’s response consists of
twenty-three written pages of argument, and ninety-five pages of exhibits. The Court has
reviewed and considered the entirety of Plaintiff’s response, including the three pages of argument
that exceed the limit set forth in Local Rule 7.1(c).
Mere hours after filing his response brief, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Page 2 of 6

Case 3:20-cv-01068-RJD Document 73 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #1945

Supplemental Response (Doc. 57). In this motion, Plaintiff asserts he did not have enough paper
to submit his additional response when he filed his initial response. Plaintiff explains he obtained
additional paper after his initial response was filed.

The proposed supplemental response

includes three pages of written argument and twelve pages of exhibits.
With regard to the substance of his first proposed supplemental response, Plaintiff asserts
Counselor King mishandled his grievances and Plaintiff reiterates his assertion that counselors
were not processing his grievances. Plaintiff attached six grievances to this response. Counselor
King responded to three of the six grievances, indicating Plaintiff failed to set forth the date on
which the incident occurred and advised Plaintiff to submit a new grievance. Brown responded to
one of the grievances, and Hallman responded to the other two grievances attached to the proposed
supplement.
Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response (Doc. 59) on
March 10, 2022, just two days after filing his initial response brief. In this motion, Plaintiff again
asks the Court to consider his supplemental arguments and exhibits because he did not have a
sufficient supply of paper when he filed his original response. Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental
response includes three pages of argument and 136 pages of exhibits.
In his proposed supplemental briefing, Plaintiff asserts the undersigned was misled during
the Pavey hearing in 20-cv-560-RJD as correctional counselors lied and stated all grievances are
serious and grievances asserting excessive force by staff could be handled by counselors.
Plaintiff also set forth his argument that he had counselors during the relevant time that were not
processing grievances.
Plaintiff included as exhibits to this proposed supplemental response more than a dozen
Page 3 of 6

Case 3:20-cv-01068-RJD Document 73 Filed 09/15/22 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #1946

grievances dated and submitted between June 24, 2019 to February 11, 2021. Plaintiff also
attached more than twenty letters he submitted to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) in
2019 and 2020, as well as orders entered by the undersigned, Magistrate Judge Beatty, and District
Judge McGlynn.
On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for the Court to Consider when Ruling on the
Defendants in Its Entirety Dispositive Motions on the Issues of Exhaustion (Doc. 65). The Court
construes this filing as a third motion for leave to file a supplemental response. It includes an
additional six pages of argument, and approximately fifty pages of exhibits. In this motion,
Plaintiff asserts that witnesses during the Pavey hearing before the undersigned in 20-cv-560-RJD
misled the Court with false testimony. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts witnesses lied in testifying
that notations would be made in Plaintiff’s Cumulative Counseling Summary if a counselor told
Plaintiff they were not going to process grievances. Plaintiff also asserts testimony at a Pavey
hearing held in 20-cv-788-GCS establishes that not all conversations or every element of a
conversation would be noted in an individual in custody’s Cumulative Counseling Summary.
Attached to this supplement response is the Pavey hearing transcript for case
20-cv-788-GCS, which included testimony by Shayne Mercier, a Grievance Officer at
Pinckneyville.
Finally, on August 22, 2022, ahead of the Pavey hearing scheduled for August 29, 2022,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for the Court to Accept Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendants’
Dispositive Motions on the Issue of Exhaustion (Doc. 69). Plaintiff asserts the hearing was not
set with sufficient time for him to arrange for IDOC witnesses to testify and asks that the Court
consider his supplemental responses and the testimony provided by Shayne Mercier from the
Page 4 of 6

Case 3:20-cv-01068-RJD Document 73 Filed 09/15/22 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #1947

hearing held in 20-cv-788-GCS.
Discussion
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), “[i]f a party believes it is necessary to supplement its brief
with new authority due to a change in the law or facts that occurred after the filing of its brief, the
party must seek leave of court to file a supplemental brief.” In this instance, Plaintiff provides no
explanation for why he was unable to include his supplemental arguments in his initial response.
Notwithstanding his unconvincing and irrelevant argument concerning paper, Plaintiff sets forth
no argument that any of his supplemental arguments were spurred by a new development or were
otherwise unknown to him at the time his initial response was filed. Indeed, there appears to be
no change in facts or law to justify the filing of any supplement.
This Court allowed Plaintiff to file a response in excess of the page limit set by local rule.
Indeed, Plaintiff filed a twenty-three page response with an additional ninety-five pages of
exhibits. As with any other party, Plaintiff is not allowed an infinite number of pages for briefing
and must abide by the page limits set by this Court, and said page limits must be considered when
drafting a brief. All parties must decide what arguments to include given a finite amount of
pages, or explain to the Court why additional pages are necessary. Here, the Court finds no
reason to allow Plaintiff to circumvent the Local Rules and submit an additional twelve pages of
argument and almost two-hundred pages of exhibits. Plaintiff was allowed to file a brief in excess
of the page limits, and he was also given the opportunity to present all of his arguments to the
Court at the August 29, 2022 Pavey hearing.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response (Doc. 57),
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response (Doc. 59), Motion for the Court to Consider
Page 5 of 6

Case 3:20-cv-01068-RJD Document 73 Filed 09/15/22 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #1948

when Ruling on the Defendants in Its Entirety Dispositive Motions on the Issues of Exhaustion
(Doc. 65), and Motion for the Court to Accept Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendants’
Dispositive Motions on the Issue of Exhaustion (Doc. 69) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 15, 2022
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 6 of 6