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 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Plaintiff's Motions to Amend His Complaint By
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.
Plaintiff's Motions to Accept Relevant
Evidence/Declarations/Newly Discovered Evidence
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