Pritchett v. Wallace et al

Filing 88

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion to transfer (#81) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion regarding amended the Case Management Order (#65) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (#67) is DENIED.IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the defendants shall file a report to the Court as requested above regarding plaintiffs ability to access the materials and other resources he requires to prosecute his case effectively no later than November 7, 2014. ( Response to Court due by 11/7/2014.) Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/22/14. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ERIC PRITCHETT
Plaintiff,
v.
IAN WALLACE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13CV100 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Numerous motions are currently pending in this case. The plaintiff’s “Notice to
Courts” has been styled as a motion for transfer (#81), and it states that plaintiff is being
denied legal supplies and that the prison is withholding postage and stationery that he
purchased with his funds from the canteen. Further, plaintiff states that the prison is
keeping his legal documents from him, and that he is being prevented from accessing a
notary. Plaintiff suggests that these resources (including his own property) are being kept
from him in retaliation for having filed the lawsuit, which is itself about similar denial of
access to the legal system. Plaintiff requests specifically that the Court transfer him to
another prison, the Farmington Correctional Center in Farmington, Missouri.
Defendants filed a response to the motion. However, rather than respond to the
substance of plaintiff’s motion, they state that plaintiff is not entitled to transfer as a
procedural matter. Plaintiff essentially seeks injunctive relief, for which he has not made
the necessary showing. See Dataphase Sys. v. CL Sys., 640 F.2d 109, 113-14 (8th
Cir.1981) (en banc). But the Court is concerned --- based on this motion and others
currently pending --- that plaintiff may be thwarted from prosecuting his case by the

defendants and those acting in concert with them. Defendants should respond
substantively to plaintiff’s statements. Is plaintiff being denied the postage and stationery
he purchased, and is plaintiff being denied access to his legal papers? Further, although it
is not clear plaintiff actually requires a notary to prosecute his case, the defendants should
also respond regarding whether plaintiff has been denied access to a notary.
Next, the Court will address plaintiff’s submission docketed as #65. Plaintiff
states that he would like more time to work out whether he needs to join more parties to
this case because he has been in administrative segregation and thus separated from legal
materials and access to individuals who can help him. Plaintiff named more than twenty
defendants in his Amended Complaint, but he states that there are new parties that have
joined the “campaign of harassment” against him. To the extent plaintiff would like to
amend his complaint, he may seek to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b), which requires him to show “good cause in order to be granted leave to amend.”
Sherman v.Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir. 2008); Popoalii v.
Correctional Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the Court’s earlier denial of his motion for
discovery. (Docketed as #67.) That motion is denied because the “Motion for
Discovery” originally filed appeared to contain discovery requests that are not properly
filed with the Court. Discovery requests should be served on the defendants, not filed
with the Court.
Plaintiff also seeks an explanation for why a “hammer” appears next to some
items on the docket sheet. The hammer typically indicates that the Court has not yet
ruled on a motion as of the time the docket sheet was printed out.

Finally, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (#70,
#80) for the same reasons the Court has given in denying previous motions (see, e.g.,
March 18, 2014 Order, #59). To the extent the defendants are actively preventing the
plaintiff from litigating this case, the Court will impose the appropriate remedies.
Defendants shall respond to the Court as requested above no later than November 7,
2014.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to transfer (#81) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion regarding amended the
Case Management Order (#65) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(#67) is DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the defendants shall file a report to the Court as
requested above regarding plaintiff’s ability to access the materials and other resources he
requires to prosecute his case effectively no later than November 7, 2014.

Dated this 22nd day of October, 2014.
_______________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE