Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Wilkerson v. Godinez

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

November 2, 2016

ANTHONY WILKERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
SALVADORE GODINEZ, et. al. Defendants.

          MERIT REVIEW ORDER

          HAROLD A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This cause is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint [18] and motion to clarify his proposed amended complaint. [19]

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed an original complaint which was 154 pages complete with exhibits. Plaintiff listed more than 200 Defendants including Illinois Department of Corrections Officials, doctors, officers, Administrative Review Board Members, judges and states attorneys. (Comp., p. 1-2, 13-23). While it is was difficult to interpret Plaintiff's complaint, he mentioned incidents as far back as August of 1993 and various allegations relating to disciplinary tickets, disciplinary hearings, medical care, library time, access to the courts and a variety of other issues.

         The Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20. See December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order. The Court explained to the Plaintiff that any claims pursuant to §1983 were subject to a two year statute of limitations period. See December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order, p. 1-2 citing Wilson v Giesen, 956 F.2d 738, 740 (7th Cir. 1992); Farrell v. McDonough, 966 F.2d 279, 280-82 (7th Cir. 1992). In addition, Plaintiff was advised he could not combine unrelated claims against different defendants in one lawsuit. See December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order, p. 2. Plaintiff was further admonished it was not enough to simply list all intended Defendants without explaining how each was involved in his claims. See December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order, p. 2.

         Therefore, the Plaintiff was given additional time to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims and specific instructions to follow.

The amended complaint must stand complete on its own and must not make reference to the original complaint. Plaintiff must provide a BRIEF statement of his claims in numbered paragraphs. For each claim, the Plaintiff must state which specific defendant was involved, what specifically the defendant did and the date of the incident or a very specific time frame such as the week, month and year. Plaintiff must not include exhibits, but should instead state his claims in the body of his complaint. December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order, p. 2-3.

         Plaintiff was directed to file his proposed amended complaint on or before December 24, 2015. However, after the deadline, Plaintiff filed a motion asking for an additional 90 to 120 days to file his amended complaint. [8] The Court noted Plaintiff was an experienced litigator. See Wilkerson v Haabs, Case No. 10-1067; Wilkerson v Peters, Case No. 94-1008; Wilkerson v Peters, Case #94-1019; Wilkerson v Peters, Case No. 95-1278; Wilkerson v Mote, Case No. 03-1217 in the Central District of Illinois. Therefore, the Court found Plaintiff's request for an additional three to four months was excessive. The Court instead allowed Plaintiff an additional 21 days. Plaintiff was again admonished if he did not file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's order on or before March 11, 2016, his case would be dismissed. See February 18, 2016 Text Order.

         Plaintiff then filed a letter with the Court asking for an extension of time. [11] Plaintiff claimed he was not receiving adequate law library time. However, Plaintiff did not say why he needed additional time in the law library. Plaintiff was reminded he should provide only a short and plain statement of his claims in compliance with the Court's December 3, 2015 order. The Court noted it would allow Plaintiff “one FINAL extension of time, ” and if he did not file his proposed amended complaint on or before April 28, 2016, his case would be dismissed. April 14, 2016 Text Order. Plaintiff was further admonished he must not send letters to the Court, but could file motions. The Court noted it would strike any further letters. See April 14, 2016 Text Order.

         Six days later, Plaintiff filed a letter which was stricken by the Court. [12]. Plaintiff was again reminded he must file motions specifically stating what relief he was requesting. See April 20, 2016 Text Order.

         Plaintiff responded with another motion for additional time to comply with the Court's order. [13] This time Plaintiff claimed he could not comply with the deadline due to eye problems. The Court allowed 14 additional days, but noted Plaintiff had been allowed four months to comply with the Court's December 3, 2015 order. Therefore, if Plaintiff failed to file his proposed complaint on or before May 11, 2016, his case would be dismissed. See April 27, 2016 Text Order.

         One day after the deadline, Plaintiff filed a motion for an enlargement of time and motion for appointment of counsel.[14] Plaintiff continued to complain of eye problems, but the Court noted he had demonstrated an ability to file multiple motions. Plaintiff was admonished if he did not file his complaint on or before May 24, 2016, his case would be dismissed. See May 13, 2016 Text Order.

         One day after the deadline, Plaintiff filed another motion for additional time [15] followed by a motion for production of documents.[16] Plaintiff stated he did not receive the Court's last order until one day before the May 24, 2016 deadline, and therefore he was unable to comply. The Court again noted Plaintiff was an experienced litigator who was allowed months to comply with the Court's order. “The Plaintiff MUST file his amended complaint on or before June 21, 2016 or his case WILL be dismissed with prejudice. A copy of this order is to be faxed to the litigation coordinator at Plaintiff's facility to insure receipt by the Plaitniff.” June 7, 2016 Text Order. Plaintiff's motion for production of documents was denied as Plaintiff was not in the discovery phase of his litigation.

         Plaintiff has now filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. [18] Six days later, Plaintiff filed a motion to clarify his pleading.[19] The motion for leave to amend is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. [18] However, Plaintiff's motion to clarify is denied. [19] The Court does not allow piecemeal amendments in order to avoid confusion over claims and Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff's amended complaint is a 79 page, single ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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