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.

Watson v. Witty

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division

February 21, 2018

TERRY G. WATSON, Plaintiff,
v.
KAREY L. WITTY, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are various motions filed by plaintiff, including motions to amend his complaint by interlineation, as well as motions for injunctive relief and motions for discovery. Also before the Court are a plethora of “declarations” and “exhibits, ” as well as several motions for injunctive relief. It appears that some of plaintiff's “declarations” are supplements to his amended complaint, while other declarations are “evidence” meant to be offered to the Court at this time. After reviewing the multiple filings in this matter, the Court will deny plaintiff's requests to amend his complaint by interlineation, strike plaintiff's stand-alone declarations and deny plaintiff's request for injunctive relief at this time. The Court will additionally deny plaintiff's requests for discovery, as discovery has not yet commenced in this proceeding.

         The Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff, an inmate at Moberly Correctional Center (“MCC”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Court did a pre-service review of the 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 issues survive review with respect to Dr. Ashok Chada, Dr. Paul Jones and Cathy Barton. These defendants are all current or former employees of Corizon, Inc. The Court found that several of plaintiff's ADA claims also survived review with respect to Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) employees Lisa Pogue, Michelle Buckner and Correctional Officer Allen.[1] See Memorandum and Order issued March 9, 2017, Docket #40. Plaintiff's additional claims, as well as several other defendants, however, were dismissed from this action. Id.

         Throughout the course of this litigation, plaintiff has filed numerous motions, declarations, and supplements in an attempt to amend pleadings and badger the Court and the parties, and “submit evidence” to the Court in a piecemeal manner. The Court has addressed plaintiff's attempts in clear and unambiguous language, telling plaintiff in no uncertain terms that such practices are not allowed in Federal Court proceedings. See Docket Numbers #14, #40, #51, #52 and #62.

         On April 12, 2017, the Court stated,

In its 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.
Accordingly, 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...[Additionally], [a]s this Court has told plaintiff on multiple occasions, “discovery” or “evidence” may not be filed in the Court record. It may only be filed with this Court if it is filed in support of a motion or pleading.

         Despite being told on multiple occasions that he could not continue filing numerous frivolous motions and supplements with this Court, plaintiff has continued in the same manner. This is the last time the Court will address plaintiff's frivolous filings. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court can dismiss the plaintiff's action for failure to comply with a Court Order. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Court's mandate stop filing frivolous “supplements, ” “declarations supporting frivolous motions, ” “motions to accept evidence, ” “ motions for discovery” when discovery has not yet been commenced, and “affidavits in support, ” this Court will dismiss this action as a sanction for failure to comply with this Court's Orders.

         Discussion

         A. Plaintiff's Motions to Amend His Complaint By Interlineation

         In Docket Numbers #78, #82, #84 and #121 plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint by interlineation, supplementation or exhibits. As plaintiff has been told on multiple occasions that the Court does not accept amendments by interlineation, the Court will deny these motions. Neither the Court nor defendants should be required to comb through plaintiff's multiple filings to “match-up” his allegations with the proposed defendants. See, e.g., Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008) (finding that it is appropriate to deny leave to amend a complaint when a proposed amendment was not submitted with the motion). Thus, plaintiff's motions to amend by interlineation and/or supplementation will be denied.

         B. Plaintiff's Motions to Accept Relevant Evidence/Declarations/Newly Discovered Evidence

         In Docket Numbers #80, #82, #84, #94, #96, #100, #102 and #121 plaintiff requests that the Court accept evidence, declarations, or newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff has been told in numerous prior orders that stand-alone “supplements, ” “exhibits, ” “declarations” and “motions to accept relevant evidence” are not proper pleadings in this Court and as recourse, these motions and declarations will be stricken from the Court record. Further, as noted above, if ...


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.