United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
TERRY G. WATSON, Plaintiff,
KAREY L. WITTY, et al., Defendants.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is plaintiff's motion to correct his notice of
appeal. The Court will grant plaintiff's motion to the
extent he intends to clarify the record with respect to his
notice of appeal. The Court will deny plaintiff's motion
to the extent his motion is a request to stay this action
during the pendency of his interlocutory appeal.
an inmate at Moberly Correctional Center (“MCC”),
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well
as the America ns with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The Court did a pre-service review of this action, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, on March 9, 2017. In the
pre-service review, the Court found that plaintiff's
claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs relative to his leg and back issue survive review with
respect to Dr. Aschok Chada, Dr. Paul Jones and Cathy Barton
(Corizon, LLC employees). The Court found that several of
plaintiff's ADA claims also survive review with respect
to MDOC employees Lisa Pogue, Michelle Buckner, Correctional
Officer Allen. See Memorandum and Order issued March
9, 2017, Docket #40. Plaintiff's additional claims, as
well as several named defendants, however, were dismissed.
March 9, 2017 Memorandum and Order, the Court struck from the
record sixteen (16) stand-alone declarations filed by
plaintiff in this action. The Court reminded plaintiff that
he was told in the Court's December 2, 2016 Memorandum
and Order that the Court does not accept amendments by
interlineation or supplementation. In addition, the Court
does not accept discovery to be filed as a stand-alone
document in the Court record. Rather, discovery may only be
filed as an attachment in support of a motion. See
Eastern District of Missouri Local Rules.
as noted above, sixteen (16) of plaintiff's declarations
were stricken from the Court record in the Court's March
9, 2017 Memorandum and Order. Nevertheless, plaintiff
continued to file “declarations” with this Court.
In the Court's March 20, 2017 Memorandum and Order, the
Court not only struck two (2) additional
“declarations” from the Court record, but it also
instructed the Clerk of Court not to accept any additional
stand-alone “declarations” from plaintiff in this
action. Plaintiff was instructed that he could not file
supplements to his pleadings or motions, or file with the
Court discovery. Thus, in accordance with this Court's
Local Rules, his stand-alone evidentiary
“declarations” would not be filed in the Court
record unless they are sent in support of a motion or a
pleading. The Court then examined plaintiff's ninth
(9th) request for injunctive relief in this
April 12, 2017 [Doc. #62], the Court reviewed two motions by
plaintiff to amend his complaint, a motion for
reconsideration of a denial of a request for injunction and
two “evidentiary motions.” The Court also
reviewed a new request for injunctive relief and a request to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court denied
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and his motions
to “present evidence” were once again stricken
from the Court's record. Plaintiff's motions to amend
his complaint were denied because he failed to attach a
proposed amended complaint to his motions to amend, and
plaintiff had been told repeatedly that the Court would not
allow amendments by interlineation or supplementation.
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief was also denied.
See Docket No. 62.
to the instant motion, in Docket #58, plaintiff sought leave
to proceed in forma pauperis on an interlocutory appeal,
which the Court has already granted. In his Notice of Appeal
[Doc. #57], he asks that “all stricken documents”
be transferred to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for
addressed in the Court's prior Memorandum and Order, in
his plaintiff's Notice of Appeal, plaintiff asserted that
“there are matters of law and constitutional rights
that he disagrees with in this Court, ” and “it
appears that judicial bias against the incarcerated have
played a role.” On April 12, 2017 [Doc. #62], the Court
addressed plaintiff's assertions of judicial bias,
treating his assertions as a motion for recusal.
Plaintiff's motion for recusal was denied, as he had not
offered any basis for showing that the Court had failed to
treat his case with impartiality. See Docket No. 62.
April 12, 2017 Memorandum and Order, the Court informed
plaintiff that normally, only a final Order or Judgment can
be appealed to an Appellate Court. See
Fed.R.Civ.P.54; 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court noted,
however, that there are certain interlocutory decisions over
which an Appellate Court has jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291-1292. The Court told plaintiff that
because plaintiff had only referred to the Court's
actions striking his declarations in his Notice of Appeal, it
was unable to state for certain whether the Order he refers
to is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. After the Court
entered its Memorandum and Order, plaintiff filed the instant
motion to correct his Notice of Appeal, plaintiff asks for
“an interlocutory appeal on matter of legal points of
law and matter collateral to the injunctive relief requested
in several actions.” Plaintiff goes on to state a
number of questions he wishes the Court of Appeals to
consider, including plaintiff's apparently overarching
question in this lawsuit: Why doesn't the Missouri
Department of Corrections recognize the same disability
standards as the Department of Veterans Affairs?
although plaintiff has sought to clarify his Notice of
Appeal, plaintiff has not indicated the specific Court Orders
he wishes to appeal from, nor has he indicated the docket
numbers that correspond to his Notice of Appeal. He has
merely “clarified” the numerous questions that he
wishes the appellate court to address on appeal.
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292, when attempting to
review interlocutory decisions, courts of appeal are limited
to reviewing certain orders from the district court,
including those refusing injunctions. Id. Plaintiff
has indicated in the present motion that he wishes the
appellate court to review all of this Court's orders
denying his requests ...