United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DREW M. MOIR, Plaintiff,
TIMOTHY AMDAHL, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G. WILKERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District David R.
Herndon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a
Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Sanctions filed
by Defendant (Doc. 30). For the reasons set forth below, it
is RECOMMENDED the motion be
GRANTED, the Court DISMISS
this action WITH PREJUDICE, and the Court
adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Drew M. Moir was an inmate at Robinson Correctional Center
where he alleges his First Amendment right to the free
exercise of his religious beliefs was violated (Doc. 9, p.
1). Moir filed this action under to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and the Court conducted a preliminary review of his claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Moir was allowed to
proceed on the following claims:
Count 1 - First Amendment claim against
Amdahl for confiscating Plaintiff's prayer rug on June
Count 2 - First Amendment retaliation claim
against Amdahl for filing two unsubstantiated disciplinary
charges against Plaintiff (June 29, 2017 and July 19, 2017)
and for confiscating Plaintiff's prayer rug on June 29,
2017, after Plaintiff filed a civil rights lawsuit naming
Amdahl as a defendant (No. 17-cv-66).
to filing the instant action, Plaintiff filed a pro
se civil rights action against numerous Robinson
officials, including the three individuals named in this
case. See Moir v. Amdahl et al., No.
3:17-cv-66-DRH-RJD (filed January 23, 2017) (Doc. 1, p. 3).
In the instant action, Moir contends Defendants are harassing
him in retaliation for filing the prior lawsuit. The
allegations of harassment include taking Plaintiff's
property without justification (a prayer mat and a hot
plate), false disciplinary charges, and a threat to remove
Plaintiff from the transitions program (Doc. 9, pp. 3-5).
original Complaint, Moir also raised a claim against
Defendant Davis Rains. The Court dismissed Rains from the
action in his individual capacity, but because Rains was the
warden of Robinson Correctional Center, he remained as a
defendant in his official capacity for purposes of any
injunctive relief ordered by the Court (Doc. 9, p. 6).
October 27, 2017 Moir filed a Notice of Change of Address
providing with the Court with a personal address in Iowa
on March 21, 2018, Amdahl served Plaintiff with
interrogatories and a request for production of documents
(Doc. 28, ¶ 1). Moir did not respond to the discovery
requests (Doc. 28, ¶ 1). On April 27, 2018 counsel for
Defendant sent a letter to Moir giving him an extension of
time up to May 9, 2018 to respond to Defendant's
discovery requests and indicated a motion to compel would be
filed if the plaintiff failed to respond (Doc. 28, ¶ 2).
Moir again did not respond (Doc. 28, ¶ 3). As a result,
Amdahl filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 28), which
this Court granted on May 21, 2018 (Doc. 29). In the
Court's Order, Moir was ordered to respond to the
outstanding discovery by June 8, 2018 and was warned that
failure to respond might result in dismissal of this action
for failure to prosecute (Doc. 29).
received no respond to his discovery, Defendant Amdahl filed
the pending Motion for Sanctions asking the Court to dismiss
this action (Doc. 30, p. 3).
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) permits a court to
sanction a party for not obeying a discovery order, including
dismissal of the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). The
Court is mindful of the difficulties prisoners face in
proceeding pro se, as well as the additional
obstacles Moir faced when he was paroled from prison. Those
difficulties, however, do not excuse Moir from complying with
deadlines, following the direct Orders of the Court, or
maintaining basic communication with the Court. “Once a
party invokes the judicial system by filing a lawsuit, it
must abide by the rules of the court; a party cannot decide
for itself when it feels like pressing its action and when it
feels like taking a break . . .” James v.
McDonald's Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005).
Court finds that Moir has failed to comply with discovery in
this case by failing to respond to properly propounded
interrogatories and request for production of documents in
violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34.
Further, the Court finds that despite being warned of the