Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stewart v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 21, 2006

BRIAN STEWART, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROGER WALKER, ET.AL., DEFENDANTS,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

This cause is before the court for consideration of the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration of the court's May 2, 2006 Court Order [d/e 30, 31].

The plaintiff first submitted his case nearly one year ago, and the plaintiff has still not clearly stated his claims as is required by the law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. The plaintiff somehow believes the court has "prejudged" his claims. The court has no opinion about the validity of the plaintiff's claims. The court is simply trying to assist the plaintiff so he can state his claims more clearly. If the plaintiff can not state what he is accusing each defendant of doing and when and where the acts occurred, then the defendants can not file a meaningful response. The litigation cannot proceed. The court has shown patience with the plaintiff since he is proceeding pro se. However, the plaintiff has one last chance to follow the court's specific directions or his case will be dismissed in its entirety. The plaintiff can not proceed with his litigation if he can not clearly state his claims and he can not follow the court's directions.

The plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against twenty-two defendants from four different correctional facilities. The thirty-five page handwritten complaint did not clearly delineate specific claims against any of the named defendants. In addition, the plaintiff had attached hundreds of pages of documents to his complaint. The court attempted to clarify the plaintiff's claims in a merit review hearing on October 19, 2005. However, it was clear the plaintiff needed more time to narrow his claims. The court therefore dismissed the complaint and documents as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In an effort to help the plaintiff more specifically state his claims, the court provided the plaintiff with questions about his allegations and instructed the plaintiff to answer the questions. The plaintiff was admonished that he must provide his responses to the specific questions on or before November 7, 2005 and no continuances would be granted. See October 19, 2005 Court Order. The plaintiff instead ignored the court's instructions and instead filed numerous motions with the court after the specified deadline.

The plaintiff now claims he did not receive the court's first order and therefore did not know there were specific questions for him to answer. Instead, the plaintiff submitted a motion to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint did not provide the information needed and the motion was denied.

The court will provide the plaintiff with the questions again and allow him one last opportunity to provide a response. The plaintiff is advised that he must provide answers to each of the nine questions. He should follow the court's specific directions. Again, the court has no opinion about the validity of the plaintiff's claims and has made no attempt to "judge" his claims. The court is simply trying to help the plaintiff proceed with this litigation. The plaintiff must provide his responses within 21 days or his case will be dismissed. If the plaintiff does not follow the court's instructions, his case will be dismissed.

The plaintiff's motions to reconsider again ask the court to allow his amended complaint. For the reasons stated in the May 2, 2006 Court Order, the motion is denied. The plaintiff also asks the court to reconsider the denial of his motions for a temporary restraining order which also ask the court for expedited relief. The motion is denied. Once again the plaintiff is reminded that the fastest way to get his litigation moving forward is to follow the court's order and answer the court's specific questions about his claims.

QUESTIONS

To assist the plaintiff, the court will repeat the questions from its October 19, 2005 Court Order. The plaintiff must answer each of these questions by providing clear and concise answers:

1. When was the plaintiff transferred to Menard Correctional Center and how long was he there? When was the plaintiff transferred to Pickneyville Correctional Center and how long was he there?

2. When was the plaintiff transferred to Dixon Correctional Center and how long was he there?

3. When was the plaintiff transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center? Has he remained at Pontiac since this date?

4. While at Pickneyville Correctional Center, state specifically why you believe these individuals failed to provide you the necessary medical treatment: (The plaintiff should provide no more than two or three sentences for each defendant) If the defendant was not at Pickneyville, please clarify which correctional facility they worked at.

A. Dr. Siddiqui

B. Dr. Wong

C. Ty Wallace

D. Eubanks

E. Lawrence Weiner

F. Mary Henry

G. Nurse Nancy Knope

5. While at Menard Correctional Center, state specifically why you believe each of these individuals failed to provide you the necessary medical treatment. (The plaintiff should provide no more than two or three sentences for each defendant) If the defendant was not at Menard, please clarify which correctional facility they worked at.

A. Dr. Mirza Baig

B. Lieutenant Farrell.

6. While at Dixon Correctional Center, state specifically why you believe Dr. Finn failed to provide you the necessary medical treatment. (The plaintiff should answer this question in no more than two or three brief sentences).

7. While at Pontiac Correctional Center, state specifically why you believe each of these individuals failed to provide you the necessary medical treatment. (The plaintiff should provide no more than two or three sentences for each defendant) If the defendant was not at Pontiac, please clarify which correctional facility they worked at.

A. Dr. Kowalkowski

B. Officer Montgomery

C. Warden Mote

D. Michael Melvin

E. Dr. John Garrlick

F. Dr. Choudry

G. Dr. Larsen

H. Dr. Alton Angus

I. Dr. Edward Smith

8. Please clarify why you have named the following individuals as defendants in one or two sentences.

A. Roger Walker

B. Jesse Montgomery

C. Rick Orr

9. Besides the continued problems with medical care, is the plaintiff claiming any other violation of his constitutional rights? Is the plaintiff claiming any other defendants were involved. If so, the plaintiff must identify each claim and state clearly what happened, which defendants were involved, how they were involved and when the event occurred. The statement of each additional claim should not exceed two or three sentences.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1) The plaintiff's motions for reconsideration of the May 2, 2006 Court Order are denied. [d/e 30, 31].

2) The plaintiff must provide his answers to the nine questions in this order on or before July 21, 2006. The plaintiff must follow the court's specific instructions in answering the questions.

3) The plaintiff has one last opportunity to clarify his claims so this litigation can move forward. There will be no further continuances. If the plaintiff does not answer the specific questions in this order as directed by the court, his case will be immediately dismissed.

20060621

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.