Williams v. Lombardi et al
Filing
17
OPINION MEMORANDUM re: 16 MOTION for Extension of Time to File ;Extension to file the following: Amended Complaint ;Proposed extension date 12/31/2013 filed by Plaintiff Cornelius Williams, Jr. motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 12/3/13. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
CORNELIUS WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE A. LOMBARDI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:13CV50 LMB
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s third motion for extension of time to file an
amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s August 12, 2013
Memorandum and Order. [Doc. #16] For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion
will be denied and his action will be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Procedural History
On March 19, 2013, plaintiff, an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”), filed a roughly sixty-page complaint in this action, making claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Attached to plaintiff’s complaint were
approximately 435 pages of exhibits which he asked to be considered as part of his
pleading. Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis.
On August 12, 2013, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. #8] Plaintiff’s complaint sought monetary relief against
twenty-eight (28) named defendants, all but six of which were employed by the
State of Missouri. The remainder were employed by Correctional Medical
Services/Corizon, Inc. Plaintiff’s allegations arose from a host of different
occurrences that took place from the Fall of 2009 and continued on through
present day; representing actions over the course of an almost five-year period.
For example, plaintiff claimed he was placed in administrative segregation in
violation of his due process rights for a term of 431 days. He also claimed that he
was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment during his incarceration in
administrative segregation, constantly subjected to false conduct violations, daily
harassment and fraudulent write-ups. Plaintiff claimed that these actions were done
by a plethora of different defendants at many different times throughout the past
four years.
He further asserted that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) were violated in an abundance of ways from 2009 through the present.
He named a long list of places and facilities at SECC that were not handicappedaccessible, in addition to many instances he believed he was being subjected to
discrimination on the basis of an alleged disability by several different defendants.
-2-
Plaintiff also claimed he was denied the proper medical devices needed for his
alleged disability, including a properly fit wheelchair, along with a wheelchair
cushion, and transportation in a handicapped-accessible van, as well as a properly
fitted shower stall.
Plaintiff additionally claimed that he was denied proper medical treatment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment on numerous occasions, including: (1) to and
from trips to an outside hospital; (2) several times when he sought medical
treatment for difficulty with his blood sugar, especially times when he was forced to
hit the medical emergency button in his cell and several of the defendant guards
purportedly ignored him; (3) several times when he sought medical treatment for
difficulty with his liver disease and was not allegedly given the treatment he
believed he needed, including a liver biopsy and treatment with Interferon; (4) an
occasion where he alleged he had a bad reaction to the medication amitriptyline and
he was accused of attempting escape;(5) several times when he was supposedly
denied timely refills of medication and suffered what he believed to be adverse
medical consequences; and (6) several times he was purportedly denied “diabetic
diet bags” due to what plaintiff believes is a cost-saving measure for CMS/Corizon.
Plaintiff also claimed he was unfairly subjected to retaliatory punishment as a
result of filing grievances against certain defendants. Many of his claims appeared
-3-
to imply retaliation, but his complaint was inarticulate as to which of the defendants
he believed retaliated against him and in exactly what ways he believed he was
retaliated against.
Plaintiff further believed he was unlawfully denied property, and he claimed
he was denied due process in his attempts to seek return of his property. Plaintiff
additionally appeared to be making a denial of his First Amendment rights claim,
alleging that he was denied access to the Courts at some point during his
incarceration.
The aforementioned were but samples of the numerous allegations plaintiff
asserted against the twenty-eight (28) named defendants in his almost sixty-page
(60-page) complaint. The separate claims bore little or no relationship to each
other. As such, the Court required plaintiff to file an amended pleading separating
his claims, pursuant to Federal Rules 18 and 20. Plaintiff was also counseled how
to properly amend his complaint on a court-form and in compliance with this
Court’s Local Rules and Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff was provided with several additional complaint forms so that he could file
separate actions relating to any defendants he wished to sue, in order to stay in
compliance with the Federal Joinder Rules. Plaintiff was given until September 11,
2013 to amend his complaint.
-4-
On August 27, 2013, plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Court’s
Memorandum and Order, as well as appointment of counsel. The Court denied
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as well as his motion for appointment of
counsel. [Doc. #9] Two days later, on August 29, 2013, plaintiff requested a sixmonth extension of time to amend. [Doc. #11] The reasons cited for the length of
the extension included plaintiff’s physical maladies, his incarceration status at a
“Maximum Security Facility,” his assignment to the “Enhanced Care Unit” at
SECC which had somewhat limited access to the law library, and his purported
“limited” knowledge of the law. [Doc. #11] The Court’s denied plaintiff’s request
for a six-month extension of time; however, plaintiff was granted an approximate
two-month extension, until October 31, 2013, to amend his pleading in compliance
with the Court’s prior Memorandum and Order. [Doc. #13]
On October 9, 2013 plaintiff sought a second extension of time to amend his
complaint. [Doc. #14] In his motion, plaintiff repeated the same reasons as given
for his prior request, with the added note that SECC had been “locked down five (5)
times since” the last extension was granted.” The Court granted plaintiff’s request
for an extension until November 30, 2013 to file his amended complaint but noted
that this would be the last extension of time granted “without good case shown.”
[Doc. #15]
-5-
Discussion
In the instant motion before the Court, plaintiff, for the third time in this
case, requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint in compliance
with this Court’s August 12, 2013 Memorandum and Order. As grounds for his
request, plaintiff once again states that he is incarcerated in a “Maximum Security”
prison, has “physical maladies” and is a “lay-person” in the law and lacks legal
knowledge. None of these grounds show “good cause” such that they can provide
plaintiff with the six-month extension of time that he has previously been denied.
See Doc. #13.
This case has languished on the Court’s docket since March of 2013 and has
yet to have a pleading survive review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Judicial resources
cannot continue to be expended on a case that has not moved in almost six months
and has no finality in sight. Furthermore, this Court explicitly informed plaintiff
in its October 10, 2013 Memorandum and Order that he would need to show
“good cause” to seek another extension of time to file his amended pleading. He
has failed to do so. There is simply nothing in the record to show that plaintiff
has made reasonable or diligent efforts to pursue his lawsuit on his own behalf.
Rather, he has continued to use the same excuses as to why he has been unable to
submit to ordinary and fair deadlines. As such, his motion for extension will be
-6-
denied and this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time
[Doc. #16] is DENIED.
A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2013.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?