United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
December 7, 2005.
TED KNOX, Plaintiff,
MARVIN F. POWERS, TERRY CALIPER, REBECCA FORNEAR, JACKIE HAMILTON, LANA WATKINS, TWYLA WALTON, CARROLL GEORGE, and JANE SIMMONS, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHILIP FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court are pending motions. The first items
considered are defendant Caliper's motions to stay the deadline
for filing her responsive pleading. Caliper's first motion, based
on the perceived need for a qualified protective order (Doc. No.
24) is GRANTED.
Caliper's second motion is based on the fact that her pleading
will not be needed if her motion for summary judgment is granted.
Rule 56 motions for summary judgment do not automatically alter
the time for the filing of a responsive pleading. In fact, Rule
56 directs the Court to consider the pleadings in considered in
deciding the merits of the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Even
so, the Court will stay a responsive pleading in some
circumstances, such as when the motion is premised on a statutory
or procedural defense.
Caliper presents a qualified immunity defense and argues that
she is entitled to judgment on the merits of plaintiff's § 1983
claim.*fn1 Because the Amended Complaint includes specific
factual allegations regarding Caliper's conduct, a responsive pleading
would assist the parties and the Court in determining whether
Caliper is immune from an award of damages and if not, whether
there is a genuine regarding a material fact. For these reasons,
Caliper's second motion to stay the deadline for a responsive
pleading (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED. Defendant Caliper shall file
her responsive pleading by December 19, 2005.
Also pending is plaintiff's motion to stay his response to
defendant Caliper's motion for summary judgment or in the
alternative to refuse the motion. Discovery is ongoing and, due
to a policy prohibiting the transfer of legal documents between
"pods," plaintiff is having difficulty gathering affidavits from
witnesses. The first part of this motion (pt. of Doc. No. 34) is
GRANTED as follows. The deadline for plaintiff's response to
defendant Caliper's motion is EXTENDED to February 20, 2006.
Plaintiff's alternative request to refuse the motion (pt. of Doc.
No. 34) is MOOT.
Also pending is plaintiff's motion for an order directing
prison officials to permit the exchange of correspondence with
witnesses or alternatively for an order appointing counsel.
Ruling on this motion (Doc. No. 35) is RESERVED. Plaintiff's
correctional counselor advised plaintiff to submit a written
request to the warden. Within 30 days, plaintiff shall supplement
this motion with a description of the warden's response, if any.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.