United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
JERMAINE D. CARPENTER, Plaintiff,
GREGG SCOTT, et al. Defendants.
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and presently civilly committed at
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, brought the
present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
claims for failure to protect from harm and retaliation. The
matter comes before this Court for ruling on the Liberty
Healthcare Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 76) and other preliminary motions filed by the parties.
to Dismiss Defendant Gregg Scott (Doc. 110)
filed a motion seeking dismissal of Defendant Gregg Scott.
(Doc. 110). In the motion, Defendants state that Defendant
Gregg Scott was dismissed in the Court’s Merit Review
Opinion (Doc. 7), and that Plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider that dismissal was denied. (Doc. 51)
(Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider); (Doc. 72)
(Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider). Plaintiff did not file a response to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to
correct “a mistake arising from oversight or omission
whenever one is found” in the record. Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(a). The Court stated in its Merit Review Opinion that
Defendant Scott would be dismissed, but an order to that
effect was never entered. (Doc. 7). As a result, Defendant
Scott was served with this lawsuit. The Court finds that
Defendant Scott should have been previously dismissed.
Defendants’ motion is granted.
Motion for Order Authorizing Release of Records (Doc. 113)
and Defendants’ Motion to Join (Doc. 119)
filed a Motion for Order Authorizing Release of Records
seeking his clinical records for the dates relevant to this
lawsuit. (Doc. 113). Defendants Caraway, Jumper, Lodge,
Louck, and Reid (“Liberty Healthcare Defendants”)
filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 115).
Defendants Clark, Erhgott, Hankins, Kunkell, Lay, Mays,
Scott, Wear, and Winters (“Rushville Defendants”)
filed a motion seeking leave to join in the Liberty
Healthcare Defendants’ response. (Doc. 119). As the
response is applicable to both sets of Defendants, the
Rushville Defendants’ motion to join is granted.
motion alleges that the documents he seeks are necessary
“to make a determination whether the behavior committee
documented their decisions in Plaintiff’s clinical
records as required” by Illinois administrative rules.
(Doc. 113 at 1). Plaintiff also seeks disclosure of the
identities of those who served on the housing committee for
the dates relevant to this lawsuit.
point out in their response that discovery in this matter
closed on September 15, 2015. Plaintiff did not file this
motion until July 15, 2016, approximately 10 months after
discovery closed and nine (9) months after the Liberty
Healthcare Defendants filed their motion for summary
judgment. In addition, Defendants provided Plaintiff with
copies of the requested Behavioral Committee documents during
discovery, and Plaintiff would have access to his own mental
is effectively asking the Court to reopen discovery on these
issues. A district court has considerable discretion in
determining whether or not to reopen discovery. Flint v.
City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764, 768 (7th
Cir. 2015) (noting that discovery must have an endpoint and
“district courts are entitled to-indeed they
must-enforce deadlines.”). Rule 6 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure allows a district court to extend a
deadline, but only where the party failed to act within a
deadline “because of excusable neglect.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). “Neglect is generally not
excusable when a party should have acted before the
deadline.” Flint, 791 F.3d at 768.
extent that Plaintiff does not already have the documents he
seeks in his possession, Plaintiff does not elaborate on why
he failed to request the documents within the discovery
period, or why he then waited more than nine (9) months after
the Liberty Healthcare Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment to make this request. Plaintiff’s motion is
Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 99)
Defendants filed a renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 99)
seeking dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s Order (Doc. 72) entered August 18,
2015. In that Order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s
answers to the Defendants’ discovery requests were
insufficient and directed Plaintiff to provide more detailed
answers. Plaintiff has not complied.
response to the motion for sanctions, Plaintiff claims that
the Defendants never re-served him with copies of the
discovery requests. See (Docs. 80, 114). The
Court’s Order (Doc. 72) only required the Defendants to
re-serve discovery requests as it related to Defendant Clark.
Whatever confusion may have existed does not excuse
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is granted, but the
Court finds that dismissal is not appropriate at this stage.
Within 14 days of this Order, Defendants shall re-serve
Plaintiff with the discovery requests in dispute and file a
notice of compliance with the Court indicating that they have
done so. Within 30 days of being served, Plaintiff shall
answer the discovery requests in a manner consistent with the
Court’s previous order. Failure to do so will result in
dismissal of this case. The Court will also extend the
relevant deadlines as detailed below.
Motion to Secure ...