Isaac v. Flenoid

Filing 89

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 81 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Harold D. Isaac, 80 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Harold D. Isaac, 82 PRO SE MOTION Court Appointed Assistance in Obtaining a Copy of Record or File Pertaining to Above-Mentioned Case filed by Plaintiff Harold D. Isaac motions are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may file an additional motion seeking specific documents from the case file as described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must respond to defendants motion for summary judgment two weeks from the date of the entry of this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/1/17. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
HAROLD D. ISAAC, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANA COCKRELL and
TIMOTHY HOLSTEN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-27 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (#80), to
compel discovery (#81), and for court-appointed assistance to help plaintiff obtain a copy
of the case file (#82). Defendants only responded to plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery. The time for additional responses or replies has passed and the issues are ripe
for disposition.
I.

Motion For Sanctions

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moves the Court to issue sanctions against the
defendants and their counsel for “the defendants’ cumulative misrepresentations of
particularized testimony, evidence, and events relevant to the factual allegations
regarding the case.” Plaintiff alleges that the exhibits attached to his motion show that
the parties’ statements and/or recollection of facts, or arguments relating to those facts,
are inconsistent. For example, plaintiff contends that he was forced to sleep on dirty
bedsheets for a total of eleven months. In alleged support for the instant motion, plaintiff

then cites half of a sentence from the defendants’ motion for summary judgment that
allegedly indicates that the defendants have misrepresented the facts (#67). In the full
sentence, the defendants had re-stated plaintiff’s allegations, stating: “[plaintiff] alleges
that he did not have a laundry bag and, therefore, had to sleep on dirty sheets for weeks.”
Plaintiff cites only the amount of time within that sentence in the instant motion as one
example of said misrepresentations and seeks the court to issue sanctions for those
alleged misrepresentations.
Put simply, the plaintiff’s allegations do not allege conduct arising to the level of
impropriety required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in order to invoke
sanctions. Rather, a discussion of factual issues is more appropriate in a motion for
summary judgment, or in a response to a motion for summary judgment. Sanctions are
not appropriate and plaintiff’s motion (#80) is denied.
II.

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff moves the Court to find that defendant Holsten violated Missouri law by
falsifying a form containing a statement made by plaintiff, to render the form containing
the alleged falsified statement as a fake or altered reprint, and to order the defendants to
disclose said form. Defendants contend, inter alia, that they have produced all of
plaintiff’s confinement records and grievances and that this form does not exist. A party
may only produce what documents exist. Further, the Case Management Order for this
case (#40) precludes plaintiff’s motion to compel as all discovery was to be completed
more than six months ago. Finally, to the extent that plaintiff attempts to plead a new
cause of action, the same Case Management Order precludes the amendment of
2

plaintiff’s complaint as all amendments of pleadings were due nearly nine months ago.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (#81) is denied.
III.

Motion for Assistance to Help Plaintiff Obtain a Copy of the Case File

Plaintiff contends that he does not have possession of the entire case file or record
and moves the Court for assistance in obtaining the same so that plaintiff may adequately
respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This motion is remarkably similar
to plaintiff’s previously filed motion for a copy of the case file (#77) that was denied by
this Court in its Order entered on July 12, 2017 (#87). In that Order, the Court held that
“because the case file is over 600 pages long, and because generally a plaintiff has a copy
of the case file, plaintiff is invited to specifically request which documents he seeks so
that the Court may mail him a limited number of documents. In the future, plaintiff is
advised to make arrangements to retain copies for his own use.” To date, it does not
appear that the Court has received any such requests from plaintiff. Like that motion, this
motion is also denied.
IV.

Conclusion

Defendants moved for summary judgment on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff has been
granted three extensions of time to file his response since that time (#71, #76, #86).
Plaintiff is granted an additional two weeks from the entry of this Memorandum and
Order to file his response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff will be
granted no further extensions. All of plaintiff’s motions (#80, #81, #82) are denied for
the reasons stated above.
Accordingly,
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (#80), to
compel discovery (#81), and for court-appointed assistance to help plaintiff obtain a copy
of the case file (#82) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may file an additional motion
seeking specific documents from the case file as described herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must respond to defendants’ motion
for summary judgment two weeks from the date of the entry of this Memorandum and
Order.
So ordered this 1st day of August, 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4