Spencer v. Brott et al

Filing 79

ORDER Resetting Schedule re 65 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 11/18/2020. (Written Opinion) (EB)

CASE 0:17-cv-05220-DSD-TNL Doc. 79 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

MARVIN SPENCER,

Case No. 17-cv-5035 (DSD/TNL)
Plaintiff,

v.
JOEL L. BROTT, Sheriff; DR. TODD
LEONARD, Physician; MICHELL SKROCH,
BSIU/CCHD Nursing Dir.; GWEN BLOSSOM
ENGLAND, CNP, RN; DR. DIANA
VANDERBEEK, Assistant Physician; CAPT.
TOM ZERWAS; SGT. TRAVIS LINDSTROM;
SGT. BRAD BOHN, Badge #3419; C/O JIM
ROURKE, Badge #3341; C/O ANNE HERBST,
Badge #3473; C/O JOHNNIE GILBERT; C/O
LISA SHORE, Badge #2163; C/O JOSHUA
JESBERG, Badge #3304; C/O CATHERINE
KOCH, Badge #2145; C/O OLUWASEUN
JIBOWU, Badge #3397; C/O DENISE COOK;
C/O TAMMY BOROS; C/O NICHOLAS
SIMON, Badge #3384; C/O LOGAN BARRETT,
Badge #3305; C/O YVONNE ADAMS, Badge
#1757; C/O AMY KAHLER, Badge #1901; C/O
DAN WORBER, Badge #3360; C/O LAURA
HOLMQUIST, Badge #1719; and C/O LORI
BENNETT, Badge #1409,
Defendants.

MARVIN SPENCER,

Case No. 17-cv-5220 (DSD/TNL)
Plaintiff,

v.
JOEL L. BROTT, Sheriff; DR. TODD
LEONARD, Physician; MICHELL SKROCH,
BSIU/CCHD Nursing Dir.; GWEN BLOSSOM
ENGLAND, CNP, RN; DR. DIANA
VANDERBEEK, Assistant Physician; CAPT.
TOM ZERWAS; SGT. ARIC HANSON, Badge
1

CASE 0:17-cv-05220-DSD-TNL Doc. 79 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 5

#3401; SGT. REBECCA BEAL, Badge #3418;
SGT. TRAVIS LINDSTROM, Badge #; SGT.
BRAD BOHN, Badge #3419; C/O JIM
ROURKE, Badge #3341; C/O ANNE HERBST,
Badge #3473; C/O JOHNNIE GILBERT, Badge
#; C/O LISA SHORE, Badge #2163; C/O
JOSHUA JESBERG, Badge #3304; C/O
CATHERINE KOCH, Badge #2145; C/O
OLUWASEUN JIBOWU, Badge #3397; C/O
DENISE COOK; C/O TAMMY BOROS, Badge
#; C/O NICHOLAS SIMON, Badge #3384; C/O
LOGAN BARRETT, Badge #3305; C/O
YVONNE ADAMS, Badge #1757; C/O AMY
KAHLER, Badge #1901; C/O DAN WORBER,
Badge #3360; C/O LAURA HOLMQUIST,
Badge #1719; C/O LORI BENNETT, Badge
#1409; C/O CHRISTOPHER HANSEN, Badge
#1074; C/O THERESA KLINGE, Badge #;
JENNIE R. THOMPSON, RN; GWENDOLYN
BLOSSOM ENGLAND, RN; ALYSSA
PFEIFER, RN; MICHELLE SKROCH, RN;
MINDI JOHNSON, CMA; BRIONY BOHN,
LPN; CASSANDRA JAMES, RN; and KAYLA
HERTENSTEIN, RN,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Marvin Spencer’s Motion for
Extension, ECF No. 119, filed in Spencer v. Brott et al., No. 17-cv-5035 (“Spencer I”). 1 Petitioner
requests an unspecified amount of time to respond to remaining Defendants Todd Leonard, M.D.,
Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England’s (collectively, “MEnD Defendants”) Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 105 in No. 17-cv-5035; ECF No. 65 in No. 17-cv-5220. Although
Plaintiff’s motion only refers to Spencer I, the Court has construed it as seeking an extension of

1

Spencer I and Spencer v. Brott et al., No. 17-cv-5220 (“Spencer II”), were consolidated on January 23, 2019. See
ECF No. 32 in No. 17-cv-5035; ECF No. 16 in No. 17-cv-5220.

2

CASE 0:17-cv-05220-DSD-TNL Doc. 79 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 5

time in both Spencer I and Spencer II. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff states that he does not currently have access to his legal materials because he is
“in the SHU under investigation.” ECF No. 119 at 1 in No. 17-cv-5035. In support of his motion,
Plaintiff has attached a letter from the unit manager, which confirms that Plaintiff has “been housed
in Administrative Detention with little to no access to his legal documents/records” since
September 27, 2020. ECF No. 120 at 1 in No. 17-cv-5035.
In a Case Management Order dated September 14, 2020, the Court set forth a briefing
schedule on the MEnD Defendants’ summary-judgment motion. See generally ECF No. 118 in
No. 17-cv-5035; ECF No. 78 in No. 17-cv-5220. The Case Management Order was issued just
under two weeks before Plaintiff was placed in the SHU/Administrative Detention. Yet, Plaintiff’s
motion comes more than one month after the October 7, 2020 deadline to respond to the MEnD
Defendants’ motion set forth in the Case Management Order. The Court has repeatedly cautioned
Plaintiff of the need to be mindful of deadlines. See, e.g., Feb. 21, 2019 Order at 6 (noting
Plaintiff’s “history of failing to adhere to deadlines established by the Court and not
communicating with the Court for extended periods of time”), ECF No. 36 in No. 17-cv-5035;
ECF No. 17 in No. 17-cv-5220; Mar. 29, 2019 Order at 3 (granting Plaintiff extension of time due
to “serious medial treatment” while cautioning “future extension requests may not be granted”),
ECF No. 43 in No. 17-cv-5035; ECF No. 23 in No. 17-cv-5220; see also, e.g., May 13, 2020 Order
at 5-6 (granting Plaintiff’s letter request to extend deadlines in pretrial scheduling order due to
COVID-19 lockdown in facility where Plaintiff is confined), ECF No. 102 in No. 17-cv-5035;
ECF No. 62 in No. 17-cv-5220.
At the same time, the MEnD Defendants have not objected to the requested extension. See
Am. Pretrial Scheduling Order ¶ 3 (requiring responses to nondispositive motions to be filed and

3

CASE 0:17-cv-05220-DSD-TNL Doc. 79 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 5

served within 10 days), ECF No. 103 in No. 17-cv-5035; ECF No. 63 in No. 17-cv-5220.
The reason(s) for Plaintiff’s placement in the SHU/Administrative Detention are not
entirely clear from the record. Based on the limited information before the Court, it would not be
unreasonable to assume that it was Plaintiff’s own actions that led to his placement. Nevertheless,
in light of Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s directive to provide contemporaneous supporting
documentation in connection with any future extension request, Apr. 10, 2019 Order at 4, ECF
No. 45 in No. 17-cv-5035; ECF No. 24 in No. 17-cv-5220, and in the absence of any objection by
the MEnD Defendants, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s response is due on or before January 15, 2021.
2. In the event no response is filed, the MEnD Defendants’ motion will be
deemed under advisement as of January 15, 2021.
3. In the event a response is filed, the MEnD Defendants’ reply is due on or
before February 1, 2021.
4. The Court will then issue its report and recommendation based on the papers,
without a hearing. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(c).
Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent Order shall
subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the party such counsel represents
to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and the like, including without limitation:
assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’ fees and disbursements; waiver of rights to object;
exclusion or limitation of witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of pleadings;

[Continued on next page.]

4

CASE 0:17-cv-05220-DSD-TNL Doc. 79 Filed 11/18/20 Page 5 of 5

complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial default judgment; and/or
any other relief that this Court may from time to time deem appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November

18

, 2020

s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota

Spencer v. Brott et al.
Case No. 17-cv-5035 (DSD/TNL)
Spencer v. Brott et al.
Case No. 17-cv-5220 (DSD/TNL)

5