United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se and presently civilly committed at
Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, brought the present
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The matter comes
before this Court for ruling on the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 54). The motion is granted.
Motion to Compel (Doc. 58)
motion appears to request a court order directing Defendants
to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his deposition. The Court
previously advised Plaintiff that he is not entitled to a
free copy of his deposition. See (Doc. 22 at 9,
¶ 21). At any rate, Plaintiff filed this motion after
Defendants Scott, Hankins, Biermann, Heller, Lay, Orrill, and
Pennock filed their motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff's deposition transcript was attached to that
motion, and Plaintiff should now have a copy.
extent that Plaintiff is alleging the Defendants have failed
to provide him a copy of the transcript for his review,
Plaintiff waived his signature at the conclusion of the
deposition. Pl.'s Dep. 110:5-10. Therefore,
Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 59)
Caraway, Reid, and Simpson filed a Motion for Sanctions (Doc.
59) seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for failure
to comply with the Court's discovery orders. Plaintiff
has not responded to the motion or requested additional time
to do so.
sent interrogatories and requests to produce documents to
Plaintiff on February 22, 2016. (Doc. 33-1). Plaintiff
attempted to send responses to these discovery requests to
the Court in violation of the Court's Scheduling Order
and local rule. See (Doc. 22 at 8, ¶ 18)
(“Discovery requests and responses are not filed with
the court. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests
directly to Defendants' counsel and not file the requests
with the Court or the Clerk.”); CDIL L.R. 26.3(A)
(stating same). The clerk entered a remark on the docket
indicating that these responses would not be filed with the
Court. See Remark entered May 2, 2016.
Court denied Defendants' first motion to compel responses
to these discovery requests given that Plaintiff had
attempted to send the responses to the Court. See
(Doc. 35 at 3, ¶ 5). The Court granted Defendants leave
to renew their motion to compel if the responses were not
received within 30 days of that Order. Id.
renewed their motion to compel on August 19, 2016. (Doc. 39).
The Court granted the motion and directed Plaintiff to send
his discovery responses to the Defendants within 30 days.
See Text Order entered September 22, 2016. Plaintiff
again failed to send his responses, and Defendants filed a
motion for sanctions.
their Motion for Sanctions, Defendants sought dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims for failure to comply with the
Court's discovery orders. (Doc. 48). The Court granted
the motion, but denied the request for dismissal. Instead,
the Court stayed the discovery deadlines pursuant to Rule
37(b)(2)(A)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until
Plaintiff complied with the Court's previous orders.
See (Doc. 57 at 3). Plaintiff was directed to tender
his discovery responses within 30 days. Id. The
Court specifically warned Plaintiff that if he “fails
to comply with this Order, the Court will construe his
failure to do so as willful, ” and that the Court would
consider dismissal of his claims as a sanction if requested
in a properly raised motion. Id.
does not dispute Defendants' assertions that he has
failed to tender the relevant discovery responses. The Court
previously admonished Plaintiff that it would construe his
failure to comply as willful, and the Court has given
Plaintiff several opportunities over more than one year to
send his discovery responses.
Plaintiff's willful failure to comply with the
Court's discovery orders, the Court finds that dismissal
is an appropriate sanction. See Ramirez v. T&H
Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2016) (Before
imposing dismissal as a sanction for discovery violations,
the Court must “find that the responsible party acted
or failed to act with a degree of culpability that exceeds
simple inadvertence or mistake….”); McInnis
v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir. 2012)
(“[E]ven those who are pro se must follow court rules
and directives.”); see also De Falco v. Oak Lawn
Pub. Library, 25 Fed.Appx. 455, 457-58 (7th Cir. 2001)
(“[P]ro se litigants do not enjoy unbridled license to
disregard clearly communicated court orders and are not
entitled to a general dispensation from the rules ...