Winston v. Lucas

ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

ANDRE WINSTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 23-cv-4208-SEM-EIL

)

TRACY KEITHLEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge:

Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Amended

Complaint (Doc. 57) and a Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 78), both

filed by pro se Plaintiff Andre Winston. In the Stipulation, Plaintiff

agrees to dismiss all claims against all Defendants relating to the

events of August 14, 2023. However, Plaintiff still wishes the Court

to consider his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, which

arises out of an incident on December 1, 2023.

The Court also addresses other pending discovery and

miscellaneous motions in this order and resets deadlines

accordingly.

I. Background

Plaintiff, a civil detainee at the Illinois Department of Human

Service’s Treatment and Detention Center at Rushville, Illinois

(“Rushville”), filed the instant suit on November 17, 2023. Plaintiff

filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint on March 26,

2024, which the Court granted.

In the Court’s Merit Review Order on Amended Complaint

(Doc. 22), the Court held that Plaintiff could proceed on a

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Defendants

Rode, Doe, Waterkotte, Jumper, Lodge, and Cobb for their role in

allegedly falsifying an incident report, an investigation, and a video,

and denying Plaintiff proper notice prior to disciplining him with

segregation. As previously indicated, the Amended Complaint

related to an incident report and resulting discipline issued in

August 2023.

The Court’s Scheduling Order entered August 26, 2024,

directed that “[a]ny motion for leave to amend the complaint shall

be filed within 90 days of this Order.” (Doc. 48, at 2 ¶ 2).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint was

November 25, 2024.

Plaintiff timely filed the instant Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint (Doc. 57) on October 10, 2024. Plaintiff then

filed a Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 78) on March 5, 2025.

II. Motion to Amend Complaint

The Court first turns to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint. In that Motion, Plaintiff explained how the

proposed second amended complaint differed from the operative

complaint indicating, in part, that he had determined that the

correct name for the Defendant who had written the relevant

incident report was Courtney Rhoades, not Carly Rode (at other

times referred to as Carly Rhoades).

Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint alleges that on

December 1, 2023, Courtney Rhoades wrote Plaintiff a “false”

incident report and “planted evidence” with the intention of

disciplining Plaintiff and/or impeding his conditional release from

Rushville.

Plaintiff alleges that he was never issued the incident report in

advance of his behavior committee hearing before committee

members Jumper, Wagner, and Lucas, nor was he notified that the

incident would be used against him in civil commitment

proceedings. The behavior committee placed Plaintiff in segregation

for 30 days and also changed his status and privileges and required

all male escorts of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff also complains that Waterkotte was charged with

reviewing the video footage but he “withheld, altered, or destroyed

[the] evidence in [Plaintiff’s] favor.”

Plaintiff alleges that Donathan failed to correct the alleged

errors in Plaintiff’s discipline after Plaintiff notified him with a

grievance.

Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 58) to Plaintiff’s Motion,

indicating they had no objection to Plaintiff filing the Amended

Complaint but asking that the Court conduct a new merit review.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, which was timely filed in

compliance with the Scheduling Order and to which Defendants did

not object, is GRANTED. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“court

should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires”).

The Second Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading

in this case.

Plaintiff may proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment Due

Process claim against Defendants Rhoades and Waterkotte for their

respective roles in allegedly falsifying an incident report and altering

or destroying relevant video, and against Jumper, Wagner, and

Lucas for denying Plaintiff proper notice prior to disciplining him

with segregation. See Merit Review Order (Doc. 22, at 5), citing

Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rushville

detainee has adequately alleged he was deprived of constitutionally

protected liberty interest where he was sent to segregation).

However, for the reasons already explained in the prior Merit

Review, Plaintiff may not proceed with a claim against Defendant

Donathan for failing to overturn Plaintiff’s discipline in response to

a grievance. See Merit Review Order (Doc. 22, at 6-7), citing Owens

v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (“alleged mishandling

of [a plaintiff’s] grievances by persons who otherwise did not cause

or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim”); Brown v.

Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir. 2017) (no supervisory liability).

III. Stipulation of Dismissal

Plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Dismissal after he filed the

foregoing Motion to Amend. In the stipulation, filed pursuant to

Federal Rule 41(a) and without objection from Defendants, Plaintiff

agreed to dismiss all claims relating to events associated with the

incident report written in August 2023.

Plaintiff further clarified in a Response (Doc. 80) to this

Court’s Text Order of April 21, 2025, that he stipulates to dismiss

without prejudice all claims against Defendants Jumper, Donathan,

Lodge, Cobb, Waterkotte, and Carly Rode. Defendants filed Notice

(Doc. 79) indicating that they had no objection to Plaintiff

dismissing the claim arising out of the August 2023 incident report.

Defendants indicated that they “do object to adding new people

regarding a separate event to this case,” referring back to their

Response (Doc. 58) to the Motion to Amend.1

1 In fact, in Defendants’ Response (Doc. 58), Defendants did

not object to the Second Amended Complaint on the basis that it

arose out of a separate incident in December 2023. Rather, as

described above, Defendants simply asked that the Court conduct a

new merit review and, specifically, asked that the Court dismiss

Plaintiff’s claims against the behavior committee members and

Defendant Donathan.

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend and to pursue a

claim based upon the December 2023 incident and subsequent

discipline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (“On motion and reasonable

notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a

supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or

event that happened after the date of the pleading to be

supplemented.”).

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendants Jumper, Donathan, Lodge, Cobb, Waterkotte, and Carly

Rode (a/k/a Rhoades) are dismissed without prejudice.

Therefore, Plaintiff proceeds on a Fourteenth Amendment Due

Process claim against only Defendants Courtney Rhoades, Wagner,

and Lucas for an incident report and discipline issued in December

2023.

IV. Discovery Motions

Also pending before the Court are various discovery motions

filed by the parties.

Pursuant to the initial Scheduling Order, discovery in this

case was set to close on February 26, 2025, with dispositive

motions due March 26, 2025. Plaintiff and Defendants have filed

Motions for Extension of Time (Docs. 60, 66, 73, 74) to complete

discovery and to file dispositive motions.

Because Plaintiff is now proceeding on claims against new

Defendants, who have not yet been served, the Court finds good

cause to GRANT the foregoing Motions for Extension of Time and

hereby resets the deadlines as follows: Discovery due January 30,

2026; dispositive motions due March 2, 2026.

Plaintiff has also filed Motions to Compel Discovery from

Defendants Carly Rode (a/k/a Rhoades), Jumper, Lodge, and Cobb

(Doc. 70) and Defendant Waterkotte (Docs. 71, 72). Plaintiff’s

Motions are denied as MOOT because all three Motions seek to

compel discovery from Defendants who are now dismissed,

pursuant to the stipulation filed by Plaintiff.

V. Motion to Waive Judgment/Fees

Finally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Waive Judgment/Fees

(Doc. 62) in the amount of $1,230.66. In his Motion, Plaintiff

references a judgment entered September 30, 2024, and a letter

from Defendant(s) dated November 22, 2024.

Upon review of the docket, the Court could not discern what

costs or judgment Plaintiff was referencing, as no judgment or other

order was entered in this case on September 30, 2024. Defendants

filed a Response (Doc. 63) indicating that Plaintiff’s Motion

appeared to be regarding a judgment for costs entered against him

in Central District Case No. 22-cv-4189.

This Court is not aware of any authority it has to waive costs

or modify a judgment in another case. If Plaintiff wishes to seek

such relief, he should do so in the case in which those costs were

assessed. See Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 59, 60, 62.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

[57] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file [57]-1 as

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

2) According to the Court’s screening of Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff has

alleged enough facts to proceed with a Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process claim against Defendants

Courtney Rhoades and behavior committee members

Wagner and Lucas. Additional claims shall not be included

in this case, except at the Court’s discretion on motion by

a party for good cause shown or under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15.

3) Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal [78], the following

Defendants are DISMISSED: Shan Jumper, John/Jane

Does, Greg Donathan, Paula Lodge, Andrea Cobb, Cody

Waterkotte, and Carly Rhoades.

4) The Clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants

under the standard procedures.

5) If a Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service

to the Clerk within thirty days after the waiver is sent, the

Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service

through the U.S. Marshals service on that Defendant and

will require that Defendant to pay the total costs of formal

service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).

6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Waive Judgment/Fees [62] is DENIED.

7) Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel [70], [71], [72] are DENIED as

MOOT.

8) The Motions for Extension of Time [60], [66], [73], [74] are

GRANTED. Discovery is now due January 30, 2026.

Dispositive motions are due March 2, 2026.

ENTERED May 14, 2025.

s/ Sue E. Myerscough

____________________________________

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE