Carter v. South Dakota Dept. of Corrections et al

Filing 136

ORDER denying 129 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 131 Motion to Extend Deadlines re 129 MOTION to Compel, 131 MOTION to Extend Deadlines (Responses due by 11/4/2024); denying 132 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 10/23/2024. (Mailed to Matthew Carter with Prisoner Civil Rights Packet) (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MATTHEW CARTER,

4:22-CV-04103-RAL

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO COMPEL AND PRODUCE,GRANTING

vs.

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

KELLIE
WASKO,
SECRETARY
OF
CORRECTIONS, OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
TERESA BITTINGER, WARDEN, OFFICIAL
CAPACITY;
SAMUEL
YOST,
UNIT
COORDINATOR, OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
CRAIG MOUSEL, MAIL ROOM CLERK,
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TAMMY MERTENS-

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME,AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

JONES,
CULTURAL
SPIRITUAL
ACTIVITIES COORDINATOR, OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, LLC, IN ITS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND MARTIN'S

INC., d/b/a CBM MANAGEMENT d/b/a
SUMMIT FOOD
SERVICES, IN ITS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES;
Defendants.

Plaintiff Matthew Carter, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary("SDSP"),filed
a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On July 3, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment and supporting pleadings. Docs. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107. To date.

Carter has not responded to Defendants' motions for surnmaiy judgment, and this Court has
extended Carter's time to respond t0 Defendants' motions for summaryjudgment two times. Docs.
117,119. Carter now moves for a further extension oftime to respond to Defendants' motions for
summary judgment. Doc. 131. Carter has also filed a motion to compel and produce. Doc. 129,

and a motion for reconsideration ofthis Court's order denying his request for discovery. Doc. 132.
The Court now considers Carter's pending motions.'
I.

Motion to Compel and Produce(Doc. 129)
Carter alleges that at least two correctional officers sexually assaulted him on September

27,2024, between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. Doc.T29 at 2. He moves for an order compelling the
South Dakota Attorney General's Office to preserve and to produce to the Court certain videos he
contends support his allegations. Id at 3. These new allegations do not relate to Carter's pending
claims, and the deadline for moving to join additional parties and to amend the pleadings has
expired. See Doc. 7712. Accordingly, Carter may not seek reliefin this action arising out ofthe

alleged sexual assault on September 27, 2024.^ If Carter ehooses to seek relief arising of the
September 27, 2024, ineident, he must file a separate civil action. Carter's motion to compel and
produce. Doc. 129, is denied.
II.

Motion for Extension of Time(Doc. 131)

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, supporting affidavits, supporting
memorandum, and statement of undisputed material facts on July 3, 2024. See Docs. 101, 102,
103, 104, 105, 106, 107. Carter's opposition papers were due on July 24, 2024. D.S.D. Civ. LR

7.I.B. Initially, this Court extended Carter's time for responding to Defendants' motions for

^ Carter sent the Court an "emergency" letter dated October 8, 2024. Doc. 130. In this
letter. Carter alleges that he has been assaulted on numerous other occasions as well. Id Carter

has not asserted an Eighth Amendment failure-to-proteet claim in this action. This case has been
pending for more than two years, all the deadlines in the Court's Rule 16 Scheduling Order have
expired, and Defendants have motions for summary judgment pending. Accordingly, it would not
be in the interests ofjustice at this stage ofthe proceedings to permit Carter to file a supplemental
complaint asserting new claims against new parties that have arisen since he filed his initial
complaint. But Carter's allegations are serious. Thus, the Clerk of Court is directed to send to
Carter a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner) packet so that Carter may pursue these
assault allegations if he so chooses.

summary judgment until September 9, 2024. Doc. 117. When Carter moved for a further
extension of time, Doc. 118, this Court extended Carter's time for responding to Defendants'
motions for summary judgment until October 9, 2024. Doc. 119. Carter now moves for an
additional forty-five (45) day extension of time to respond to Defendants' motions for summary

judgment.^ Doc. 131. Although Carter's pending motion for extension oftime was filed after his
deadline for responding to Defendants' motion for summary judgment had expired, the Court is
aware that the SDSP was on lockdown in late September and early October, which may have

impacted Carter's ability to respond to Defendants' motions for summary judgment as well as his
ability to file a timely motion for extension of time. Thus, the Court will give Carter the benefit

of the doubt and grant him one final extension of time to respond to Defendants' motions for
summaryjudgment. Carter's motion for extension oftime. Doc. 131,is granted in part and denied

in part. Carter must file his papers opposing the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Docs. 101,113, no later than November 4, 2024. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further
extensions of time will be granted. Carter's opposition papers must comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(c) and D.S.D. Civ. LR 56.1.
III.

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 132)

Carter filed a "Motion for the Transport of & Motion for Time to Set Deposition of
Matthew Tomquist # 37741." Doc. 108. This Court denied Carter's motion to schedule a
deposition because the motion was filed after the discovery deadline and did not set forth good
cause for amending the Court's Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Doc. 111. Carter has now filed a
"Motion for Reconsideration of the Appearance of Matthew [Tomquist] as a 'Key' Witness at

^ Carter's motion is dated July 18,2024, but he sent it to the Clerk of Court for filing in
an envelope postmarked on October 15, 2024. See Doc. 131 at 2-3.

Trial Along with the Showing of 'Good Cause.'"^ Doc. 132. To the extent Carter seeks

reconsideration,of this Court's previous order denying his motion to schedule a deposition after
the discovery deadline, Carter's motion is denied. Carter's motion to reconsider does not set forth

any facts, arguments, or authorities to support his request for reconsideration and, despite the
caption of the pleading, does not set forth any good cause for amending the Court's Rule 16
Scheduling Order. To the extent Carter seeks an order regarding trial witnesses, the motion is

denied a premature. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are pending, and there is no trial
date. If necessary, after the Court rules on the pending motions for summary judgment,the Court

will enter an order setting pre-trial deadlines, including a deadline for identifying trial witnesses.
For these reasons. Carter's motion for reconsideration. Doc. 132, is denied.
IV.

Conclusion

For these reasons, it is

ORDERED that Carter's motion to compel and produce, Doc. 129, is denied. The Clerk

of Court is directed to send to Carter a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner) packet.
It is further

ORDERED that Carter's motion for extension of time. Doc. 131, is granted in part and

denied in part. Carter must file his papers opposing the Defendants' motions for,summary
judgment. Docs. 101,113, no later than.November 4,2024. It is finally

^ Carter's motion is dated July 18, 2024, but he sent it to the Clerk of Court for filing in
an envelope postmarked on October 15, 2024. See Doc. 131 at 2-3.

ORDERED that Carter's motion for reconsideration, Doc. 132, is denied.

DATED this a^'^'^day of October,2024.
BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE