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.

Jellis v. Harrington

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 30, 2017

JERRY JELLIS Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD HARRINGTON, JOHN TOURVILLE, RYAN DAVIS, LARRY HALE, DONALD LINDENBERG, TIMOTHY VEATH, JASON HART, AIMEE LANG, and ROBERT SHEARING, Defendants.

          ORDER

          DONALD G. WILKERSON, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Now pending before the Court are eight (8) motions to compel (Docs. 101, 102, 105, 106, 108, 109, 112, and 114) filed by Plaintiff, responses (Docs. 107, 110, 111, 117, 119), and replies (Docs. 116 and 121); the motion for permission to ask 15 more interrogatories filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 113); the motion for hearing filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 115); the motion to appoint counsel filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 118); and, the motion requesting mandate filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 129).

         Plaintiff is proceeding on various counts related to an incident that occurred on August 27, 2013 while he was housed at the Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff claims that he was attacked by correctional officers, that he was falsely written up on disciplinary charges, that he did not receive due process at the subsequent hearing, and that he did not receive adequate medical care. Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed on the following claims:

COUNT 1: Harrington ordered the attack on Jellis or conspired to facilitate the attack, in violation of Jellis's Eighth Amendment rights.
COUNT 2: Tourville carried out Harrington's orders to attack Jellis or conspired to facilitate the attack, in violation of Jellis's Eighth Amendment rights.
COUNT 3: Hale and Lindenberg used excessive force against Jellis, in violation of Jellis's Eighth Amendment rights.
COUNT 5: Davis wrote a false disciplinary ticket against Jellis concerning Jellis's conduct in the prison cafeteria, in violation of Jellis's due process rights.
COUNT 6: Harrington, Veath, and Hart imposed punishment on Jellis without providing him a fair hearing, in violation of Jellis's due process rights.
COUNT 8: Lang delayed giving Jellis treatment for the injuries he incurred during the attack, in violation of Jellis's Eighth Amendment rights.
COUNT 9: Dr. Shearing failed to give Jellis treatment for the injuries he incurred during the attack, in violation of Jellis's Eighth Amendment rights.

(Doc. 7). Pursuant to an Order entered on October 11, 2016 (Doc. 103), the discovery deadline is January 30, 2017 and the dispositive motion filing deadline is February 17, 2017. This matter currently is set for a final pretrial conference on April 12, 2017 and a jury trial on May 2, 2017 (Doc. 43). That Court has carefully considered the motions filed by Plaintiff and finds the following:

         1. Doc. 101 directed at Dr. Shearing:

         Plaintiff seeks to compel Dr. Shearing's response to 17 interrogatories and requests to produce Dr. Shearing's employee timesheet, “management roster sheet, ” certain Wexford Health Sources, Inc. policies, the contract between Wexford and the IDOC, and documents demonstrating complaints against Dr. Shearing while employed at Menard CC. These are merits based discovery requests that were served before the exhaustion issue was resolved as to Dr. Shearing by the September 28, 2016 Order (Doc. 99) and not, as the Plaintiff mistakenly believes, the July 22, 2016 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 89). As such, the discovery responses were not due until October 28, 2016, after the date this motion was filed (on October 3, 2016). This Motion is accordingly DENIED as premature. Plaintiff's request for costs, in the amount of $54.30 is likewise DENIED. Even if the motion had been granted, it is unclear why it cost Plaintiff that amount of money to file a 10 page document and mail some documents to Defendants requesting discovery compliance. A request for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 will not be granted absent some proof that money was reasonably spent.

         2. Doc. 102 directed ...


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.