Godfrey v. Melvin et al, No. 1:2017cv01210 - Document 73 (C.D. Ill. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION: Plaintiff's motions for the Court to try to recruit pro bono counsel are denied for the reasons stated in the 3/9/18 order. (d/e's 39 , 60 .) Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to provide initial disclosures is moot. (d/e 45 .) Defendants are directed to file notices of compliance by November 30, 2018, confirming that they have produced all information ordered by the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff's motions for a transfer to a different prison is moot. (d/e 's 53 , 54 .) Plaintiff's motion to subpoena inmate witnesses for trial is denied as premature. (d/e 55 .) Plaintiff's motion to grant the relief he requests in his motions to which Defendants filed no response is denied. (d/e [ 63].) Plaintiff's motion to hold prison officials in his current prison in contempt for destroying some of Plaintiff's legal materials is denied. (d/e 70 .) Plaintiff's motion to order those prison officials in his current prison to provide mental health care is denied. (d/e 71 .) By November 30, 2018, defense counsel is directed to respond to Plaintiff's motion to compel Pontiac prison to forward four legal boxes (d/e 72 ). Defendants' motion to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines is moot. (d/e 61 .) (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 11/7/2018. (GL, ilcd)

Download PDF

Godfrey v. Melvin et al Doc. 73 E-FILED Wednesday, 07 November, 2018 10:08:28 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TERRANCE GODFREY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MELVIN, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17-CV-1210 Defendants. OPINION TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff proceeds pro se from the Hutchinson Correctional Facility in Kansas on claims arising from incidents which occurred in the Pontiac Correctional Center. This order addresses most of the pending motions, the remainder of which will be ruled on by Judge Myerscough in a separate order. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff’s motions for the Court to try to recruit pro bono counsel are denied for the reasons stated in the 3/9/18 order. (d/e’s 39, 60.) Plaintiff still appears competent to proceed pro se. Further, Plaintiff has not attached any of his mental health records or set forth whether he has earned his G.E.D., any jobs he has had Page 1 of 4 Dockets.Justia.com inside or outside of prison, any classes he has taken in prison, or his litigation experience in state and federal court, as the Court directed in that order. 2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to provide initial disclosures is moot. (d/e 45.) Defendants have provided their initial disclosures. (d/e 47, 50.) 3) Plaintiff’s motion for order to show cause (d/e 48) appears to be a motion to compel Defendants to fully comply with their disclosure and production requirements under the Scheduling Order. The motion is denied because Plaintiff does not explain how Defendants have not complied. However, Defendants are directed to file notices of compliance by November 30, 2018, confirming that they have produced all information ordered by the Scheduling Order. 4) Plaintiff’s motions for a transfer to a different prison is moot. (d/e’s 53, 54.) Plaintiff has been transferred from Pontiac Correctional Center to a prison in Kansas. 5) Plaintiff has filed a motion in which he appears to ask to exclude former Defendant Renzi as a witness because Plaintiff dismissed Renzi. The motion is denied. (d/e 52.) Nonparties, which Page 2 of 4 include former defendants, may be called as witnesses if they have relevant testimony. 6) Plaintiff’s motion to subpoena inmate witnesses for trial is denied as premature. (d/e 55.) If this case survives summary judgment, then inmates in the IDOC with relevant testimony will testify by video. If inmates have been released, Plaintiff will be responsible for serving trial subpoenas on those witnesses with the required mileage and witness fees, unless the former inmates will voluntarily appear to testify. 7) Plaintiff’s motion to grant the relief he requests in his motions to which Defendants filed no response is denied. (d/e 63.) If Defendants do not respond, then the Court rules on the merits of the motion assuming no objection by Defendants, but that does not mean the motion will be granted. 8) Plaintiff’s motion to hold prison officials in his current prison in contempt for destroying some of Plaintiff’s legal materials is denied. (d/e 70.) This case is limited to alleged incidents in the Pontiac Correctional Center. 9) Plaintiff’s motion to order those prison officials in his current prison to provide mental health care is denied. (d/e 71.) Page 3 of 4 This case is limited to alleged incidents in the Pontiac Correctional Center. 10) By November 30, 2018, defense counsel is directed to respond to Plaintiff’s motion to compel Pontiac prison to forward four legal boxes (d/e 72). 11) Judge Myerscough will rule in a separate order on the motion to clarify the claims in this case (d/e 49) and the motion for default (d/e 57). Discovery and dispositive motion deadlines remain stayed until that ruling. 12) Defendants’ motion to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines is moot. (d/e 61.) ENTERED: November 7, 2018 s/Tom Schanzle-Haskins TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.