Cantrell v. Hale et al

Filing 32

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 8/31/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 1/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 3/30/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
RICARDO D. CANTRELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
PAMELA HALE, et al.,
Defendants

No. 3:11-1142
Judge Campbell/Brown
Jury Demand

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(d) the following Initial
Case Management Plan is adopted:
1.

Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction is not in dispute.

2.

Plaintiff’s theory of case: The Plaintiff alleges

violations of this civil rights based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Plaintiff is incarcerated and is proceeding pro se.
3.

Theories

of

Defendants

Metropolitan

Government,

Sheriff Daron Hall, Kevin Cox, Pamela Hale, Lt. William Gise, Mark
Lang,

Jonathan

Sandoval,

Hugh

Watson,

and

Richard

Pickens:

Defendant Sheriff Hall was not personally involved in any of the
actions in this case and thus may not be held liable under Section
1983.
Defendants

Lt.

William

Gise,

Mark

Lang,

Jonathan

Sandoval, and Hugh Watson used the appropriate amount of force
necessary when Plaintiff refused to comply with lawful commands and
repeatedly resisted efforts to restrain him.

Defendants Richard

Pickens, Kevin Cox, and Pamela Hale acted reasonably under the

circumstances

when

they

Plaintiff’s grievances.

investigated

the

incident

and/or

the

Therefore, they may not be held liable

under Section 1983.
None of the Defendants violated any constitutional or
other federal right to which the Plaintiff was entitled.

None of

the Defendants breached any legal duty owed to the Plaintiff. The
conduct of the Defendants’ was objectively reasonable under the
circumstances. They acted in good faith under the circumstances.
In

addition,

all

of

the

individual

Defendants

are

entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. None of them
violated any right of the Plaintiff that was clearly established
and they acted objectively reasonably given the circumstances.
The Metropolitan Government’s policies and customs are
constitutional. No unlawful policy, custom or practice of the
Metropolitan Government was the moving force behind any alleged
injury or resulted in any constitutional violation.

Moreover, the

Metropolitan Government has not been deliberately indifferent.
The

Plaintiff

failed

to

exhaust

his

available

administrative remedies before he brought this action.

Therefore,

42 U.S.C. § 1997e bars his claims.
The Plaintiff did not sustain any damage to support a
claim under federal law. Any damage that the Plaintiff may have
sustained resulted from his failure to follow lawful rules and
commands. No act or omission by any of the Defendants was the

2

proximate cause of any injury. The Plaintiff’s injuries, if any,
were caused by and were the result of independent intervening acts,
events, and/or causes and the doctrines of independent intervening
acts

or

superseding

cause

bars

this

claim.

The

Metropolitan

Government is immune from punitive damages.
Defendants are entitled to judgment against the Plaintiff
for

costs,

expenses,

and

other

reasonable

fees,

to

include

attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
4.

Issues resolved:

Jurisdiction and venue.

5.

Issues still in dispute: Liability and damages.

6.

Need for other claims or special issues under Rules

13-15, 17-21, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
The Defendants reserve the right to file any motion or pleading as
they deem necessary in light of issued uncovered during the
discovery process, to the extent permitted by the United States
Code, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules for
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.
The deadline for the Plaintiff to move to amend the
complaint

(to

include

without

limitation

the

addition

or

modification of any cause of action, claim, remedy, prayer for
relief, or increase in ad damnum) shall be May 31, 2012.
The Plaintiff is cautioned that he must always keep a
current address on file with the Court, and that failure to attend
hearings or participate promptly in the process of this case can
3

result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure
to prosecute.
7.

Staging of discovery:
a.

The written discovery cut off deadline (other

than requests for admissions) is August 31, 2012.

All discovery

requests should be served sufficiently in advance of the written
discovery deadline to allow the responding party the full response
time outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Rules of Court.
b.

The deadline for fact depositions is November

c.

The deadline for the Plaintiff to provide

30, 2012.

expert disclosures pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26 is September 21, 2012.
The deadline for the Defendants to provide expert disclosures
pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26 is October 21, 2012.
d.

The deadline for expert depositions is November

e.

Discovery-related motions are due on or before

30, 2012.

October 30, 2012.

Prior to any discovery related motion the

parties will schedule and conduct a telephone conference with the
Magistrate Judge. The party requesting the conference shall check
with opposing counsel or party as to their availability before
setting a time certain with the Court.
8.

Dispositive motions:

be filed by January 11, 2013.

All dispositive motions shall

Responses should be filed within 28
4

days after the motion is filed.

The reply should be filed within

14 days after the response is filed. Absent court permission, the
motions and responses are limited to 25 pages, while the reply is
limited to five pages. If dispositive motions are filed early, the
response and reply dates are moved up accordingly.
Plaintiff is forewarned that dispositive motions must be
responded to by the dates stated, unless an extension is granted by
the Court, and that failure to respond timely may result in the
Court taking the facts alleged in the matter as true and granting
the relief requested.
on his complaint.

In responding, Plaintiff may not just rely

Plaintiff must show there is a material dispute

of fact with citation to the record, affidavits or other matter of
evidence.

Plaintiff should read and comply with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.01.
9.

Subsequent case management conferences: Should a

subsequent case management conference be needed, the parties will
notify

the

Court

approximately

30

days

before

the

close

of

discovery that a conference will be conducted and the means by
which the conference will be conducted.
10.

Alternative

dispute

resolution:

Until

parties

conduct discovery in this matter, they are unable to determine if
a settlement conference or scheduling of an ADR program (whether a
Court-provided program or otherwise) will be appropriate for this
case.

If appropriate, the parties will notify the Court of their

desire to schedule a settlement conference and/or the time frame
5

for utilizing any ADR program provided by the Court, or, if agreed
upon by the parties, any ADR program not provided by the Court.
11.

Consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge: The

parties cannot consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge because
not all parties could be consulted prior to submitting this
Proposed Case Management Order. Two of the defendants named in the
style of the case (Raymond Flaherty and Dana Williams) are no
longer employees of the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office and likely
have not been served.
12.

Target trial date:

The trial will be a jury trial.

The parties propose a target trial date in July 2013 with a
pretrial conference to be scheduled at least two weeks before
trial.

The Defendants’ anticipate that a trial will take in the

range of two to three total court days.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

6