Braden v. City of Marion Illinois et al

Filing 53

ORDER: The 50 Motion to Clarify is GRANTED. Defendants are directed to replead their Answer with responses to Counts 5, 12, 13, and 14 amended to comply with Rule 8 on or before May 30, 2024. The 51 Motion for Subpoenas and Interrogatory Forms is DENIED. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 5/9/2024. (jrj)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. Modified on 5/9/2024 (kare).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TRAVIS BRADEN,
#B84749,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 23-cv-00298-SPM

v.
TODD HUNTER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion to clarify and a motion for subpoenas and
interrogatory forms filed by pro se Plaintiff Travis Braden. (Doc. 50, 51).
MOTION TO CLARIFY
In the Motion to Clarify, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Haynes’ responses to Counts 5,
12, 13, and 14, as delineated by the Court in the Merit Review Order, are vague and unclear. (Doc.
50). These Counts are constitutional and state law claims stemming from allegations that Haynes
rubbed oleoresin capsicum all over Plaintiff’s face while Plaintiff was confined in a restraint chair.
(Doc. 26, p. 3). In responding to Counts 5, 12, 13, and 14, Defendant Haynes answers that he
denies that he violated the Fourteenth Amendment, used excessive force against Plaintiff, violated
Illinois state law, or committed any tort by using oleoresin capsicum. (Doc. 40, p. 2). Plaintiff
states that is not clear from the responses whether Haynes is admitting to the factual allegation that
oleoresin capsicum was in fact used and asks the Court to order Defendants to be more specific.
(Doc. 50, p. 1). Defendants did not respond to the motion.
Under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party responding to a pleading
Page 1 of 3

must state in “short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it ... and admit or
deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b). “A denial must
fairly respond to the substance of the allegation,” and “[a]n allegation—other than one relating to
the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not
denied.” Id. Furthermore, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, when a complaint has been
reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, defendants are to
answer “the issues stated in the Merit Review Order.” Admin. Order No. 244.
In responding to Counts 5, 12, 13, and 14, Defendant Haynes denies liability, but he does
not respond to the “the substance of the allegation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)(2). His answers are
insufficient and do not meet the requirements of Rule 8(b), as it “is not enough to simply make the
blanket statement that [Plaintiff’s rights] were not violated.” Thomas v. Duvall, No. 16-cv-00451,
2019 WL 8013742, at *6 (M.D. Penn. Oct. 3, 2019) (finding that “the fact that the defendants
denied ‘any violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights’ is not a sufficient response under Rule
8 because it does not ‘fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.’”). In responding to the
issues as stated in the Merit Review Order, Haynes “needed to either admit or deny the factual
allegations.” Id. Accordingly, the Motion to Clarify is GRANTED. (Doc. 50). On or before May
30, 2024, Defendants SHALL replead their Answer with the responses to Counts 5, 12, 13, and
14 amended to comply with Rule 8.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting the Court to issue subpoenas and for
interrogatory forms. (Doc. 51). As for the request for subpoenas, the Court has not yet entered a
discovery scheduling order on the merits. Defendants have raised failure to exhaust administrative
remedies prior to the initiation of this cause of action as an affirmative defense (Doc. 40), and it is
the Court’s procedure to stay discovery on the merits and enter a scheduling order regarding initial
disclosures and the dispositive motion on failure to exhaust. Furthermore, the Court notes that
Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff has not identified what information he is seeking and why he is unable to obtain the
information directly from Defendants through initial disclosures. Because discovery on the merits
will be stayed, the request for subpoenas is denied.
As for Plaintiff’s request for interrogatory forms, this District does not have a standard
form used for interrogatories. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to write the questions 1 that he would
like defendants to answer, keeping in mind the merits discovery is currently stayed. Accordingly,
the request for interrogatory forms is also denied, and the Motion Issuing Subpoenas is DENIED
without prejudice. (Doc. 51).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 9, 2024
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge

Interrogatories are written questions sent to the other party and the party or person that receives them must give a
written response back, under written oath. See Garcia v. Deputy Sheriffs at S.W.D.C., No. 16-00611-R, 2017 WL
10562858, at *2(C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017).
1

Page 3 of 3