The opinion
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE S. JOHNSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-860-RJD
)
C. O. JENNINGS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
INITIAL SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This case is now past the threshold review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and
Defendants have answered. Because litigation can be difficult for pro se prisoners, this Order is
being issued to help explain and streamline the process. The parties should closely read this Order,
which contains important information on deadlines, discovery, and the Court’s procedures. Failure
to follow this Order may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case. The parties also should
review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The following procedures will apply to this case.
I. Filing Fee
Plaintiff was assessed an initial partial filing fee of $40.52. (Doc. 9). The Court notes that
Plaintiff paid the initial partial filing fee in full on May 20, 2022.
II. Initial Disclosures and Pretrial Filings
A. Plaintiff shall have until January 18, 2024, to produce to Defendants the following
information related to Plaintiff’s allegations:
1. Names of persons with knowledge of the incidents and a short description of
the subject of their knowledge; and
2. A statement of the injuries Plaintiff has suffered and the relief he seeks.
information shall NOT be filed with the Court.
B. Defendants shall have until February 1, 2024, to produce to Plaintiff copies of the
following documents and information related to Plaintiff’s allegations:
1. Incident reports;
2. Grievances, along with any responses or other related materials, such as
grievance logs and counselor’s notes;
3. Disciplinary tickets, along with any documents related to the resolution of the
tickets;
4. Plaintiff’s cumulative counseling summary or other log of interactions with
staff during the relevant time;
5. Reports and/or statements of persons with knowledge of the incidents; and
6. Names of persons with knowledge of the incidents and a short description of
the subject of their knowledge, to the extent this information is not included in
the documents produced to Plaintiff.
Defendants may object to the production of the above for specific security or
other concerns.
III. Amendments to the Complaint
Amendments to a complaint are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. If
Plaintiff later seeks to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), he must send both the
proposed amended complaint and a motion asking for leave (permission) to file the amended
complaint. Defendants will have an opportunity to object to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. The Court will then review the proposed amended complaint and either grant
or deny the motion to amend the complaint.
If Plaintiff should file a motion asking for leave to amend the complaint, the following
rules shall apply:
A. Plaintiff shall have until March 18, 2024, to file a motion for leave to amend the
to amend by this date will likely bar further amendment of the complaint, except
for good cause shown.
B. Plaintiff must attach the entire proposed amended complaint to the motion for leave to
amend. The Court does not accept piecemeal amendments. Therefore, the proposed
amended complaint must stand complete on its own, including exhibits. The amended
complaint, if accepted, will replace the prior complaint in its entirety so any claims or
parties that are not included in the proposed amended complaint will be automatically
dismissed.
C. Plaintiff’s motion should explain how the proposed amended complaint differs from
the complaint on file. The proposed amended complaint also must comport with the
formatting requirements of Local Rule 15.1, which provides that “[a]ll new material in
an amended pleading must be underlined” (or redlined, if using a program like
Microsoft Word). SDIL-LR 15.1. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in
rejection of the proposed amended complaint.
IV. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Under Federal law, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing
a lawsuit that challenges prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Here, there appears to be an
issue about whether Plaintiff has met his statutory exhaustion requirement.
A. Defendants have until February 20, 2024, to file a motion for summary judgment on
the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Along with the motion, Defendants
shall serve upon Plaintiff copies of all relevant grievances; all responses to those
grievances, including grievance counselor responses and determinations by the
Administrative Review Board; any relevant grievance counselor logs; and/or any other
relevant documents in their possession concerning exhaustion of the pending claims in
affirmative defense on this issue, they shall promptly file a motion to withdraw the
affirmative defense.
B. In responding to the motion, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants copies of all
documents in his possession relevant to the issue of exhaustion. Plaintiff also should
include a description of any additional steps he took to exhaust administrative remedies
not reflected in the materials produced to the Court. This description should include the
dates additional steps were taken, the name of any individual involved in the process,
and whether any response was provided. Plaintiff is WARNED that the failure to
respond to the motion for summary judgment may result in an Order granting
the motion.
C. The Court will await the filing of a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion before
determining whether a hearing is necessary on the exhaustion issue.
V. Late Appearing Parties
For any party entering an appearance after the date of this Order (for example, a Defendant
added by Plaintiff through an amended complaint):
A. Plaintiff shall make the initial disclosures required by Section II(A) of this Order within
30 days from the new party’s appearance;
B. The new party shall make the initial disclosures required by Section II(B) of this Order
within 45 days from its appearance in this case;
C. The new party shall have 60 days from the date of its Answer to file a motion for
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
VI. Discovery
Aside from the initial disclosures required by this Order, discovery on the merits of
Plaintiff’s claims is STAYED until the Court resolves the question of whether he has exhausted
This stay applies to every Defendant regardless of whether that Defendant has moved for
summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. To be clear, absolutely no discovery on the merits
of any of Plaintiff’s claims will take place until after the Court determines whether Plaintiff has
exhausted his administrative remedies. Any motions filed regarding discovery on the merits will
be summarily denied, with leave to refile after the stay has been lifted.
Once the Court resolves the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, or if
Defendants decide not to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion, the stay
on discovery will be lifted. A second scheduling order will then be entered setting deadlines for
discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 45).
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 45), which is DENIED. Plaintiff is an
inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Hill
Correctional Center. (Doc. 29). He brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against the Defendants for their failure to remedy the
conditions that Johnson faced while housed at Lawrence Correctional Center. (Id.).
When presented with a request to appoint counsel, the Court must make the following
inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or effectively
been precluded from doing so, and (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear
competent to litigate it himself. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff
previously filed a Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3), which the Court denied (Doc. 18).
In his Motion, Plaintiff represents that he made multiple attempts to retain counsel on his own and
that he had attached the relevant correspondence to his prior motion for recruitment of counsel.
While the Court has been unable to locate the referenced exhibits, for the purposes of this Order
the Court will assume, without concluding, that Plaintiff made reasonable attempts to obtain
Plaintiff’s most recent request for counsel provides the Court with no new information. (Doc. 3
& Doc. 45). Plaintiff alleges he is unable to represent himself due to the complexity of the legal
issues involved in this dispute, his limited access to legal resources, and his lack of legal
knowledge. (Id.). However, this circumstance is not unique to Plaintiff and does not necessarily
warrant recruitment of counsel. Plaintiff is able to read, write, and understand the English
language. (Id.). He has been capable of drafting concise pleadings and motions and has
demonstrated an ability to construct coherent sentences and relay information to the Court. (See
Docs 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32). He notes in his motion that he is a college graduate with a
post-graduate education. (Id.). Further, Plaintiff is proceeding on a single claim for conditions of
confinement that do not appear to be particularly complex. As such, there is no indication that
Plaintiff is not competent to litigate this fairly straightforward matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
circumstances do not warrant the recruitment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 18, 2023
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge