when a prisoner indicates that he received help from another person, the court must “specifically examine a plaintiff’s personal ability to litigate the case, versus the ability of the jailhouse lawyer who assisted.”
How later courts described this case
- when a prisoner indicates that he received help from another person, the court must “specifically examine a plaintiff’s personal ability to litigate the case, versus the ability of the jailhouse lawyer who assisted.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
BRANDON MOTTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:21-CV-4093
)
CORY RUARK, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER & OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Robinson
Correctional Center, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
matter comes before this Court for ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
(Doc. 122), Plaintiff’s Partially Agreed Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited
Purpose (Doc. 123), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Doc. 126).
PLAINTIFF’S AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. 122)
Plaintiff’s motion requests an extension of time to reply to Defendant’s
Motion in Limine (Doc. 96). The motion is retroactively granted. Plaintiff has since
filed the appropriate response within the timeframe requested. See (Doc. 124). A
new deadline is not necessary.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY (DOC. 126)
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a reply to Defendant’s response to the motion to
reopen discovery. Defendant has not opposed this motion. The motion is granted.
The Court will consider the reply attached to Plaintiff’s motion.
PLAINTIFF’S PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY (DOC. 123)
Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of issuing a single
set of requests for production, to take no more than three depositions, and to amend
disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) and (a)(2). Defendant has agreed to
produce certain documents relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and that Plaintiff may
depose individuals Defendant identified as witnesses in his initial disclosures.
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s request to amend his expert disclosures to
identify expert witnesses. He cites to previous rulings that Plaintiff was “capable of
representing himself” within the context of ruling on Plaintiff’s motions to request
counsel, Judge Hawley’s statements regarding appointment of counsel at a previous
hearing, and Plaintiff’s failure to identify experts while pro se to argue that good
cause does not exist to reopen discovery and that doing so would unreasonably delay
this case.
A motion to reopen discovery requires the moving party to show good cause
for doing so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The central consideration in assessing
whether good cause exists is the diligence of the party seeking [this relief].” Allen v.
Brown Advisory, LLC, 41 F.4th 843, 852-53 (7th Cir. 2022).
The Court’s Scheduling Order entered September 14, 2021, required Plaintiff
to disclose any experts within 60 days. (Doc. 24 at 4, ¶ 10). Plaintiff did not disclose
any experts by that deadline. At the time it lapsed, Defendant Ruark had not yet
been added as a defendant.
The previous findings that Plaintiff was capable of representing himself were
made within the context of ruling on Plaintiff’s motions to request counsel.
Plaintiff’s statement at the August 8, 2024, hearing before Judge Hawley that
another inmate had assisted him with “everything” in the case negated these
findings and required the Court to conduct a new analysis. (Doc. 100 at 02:10-02-
15); see McCaa v. Hamilton, 893 F.3d 1027, 1033 (7th Cir. 2018) (when a prisoner
indicates that he received help from another person, the court must “specifically
examine a plaintiff’s personal ability to litigate the case, versus the ability of the
jailhouse lawyer who assisted.”) (internal quotations and citations removed). Judge
Hawley stated that he would defer ruling on the issue pending Plaintiff’s
anticipated written motion seeking appointment of counsel. Id. 04:46-5:01.
Judge Hawley indicated further that, in the interim, he would “reach out to
some lawyers…to see if they would represent [Plaintiff] solely for purposes
of…trying the case.” Id. at 08:30-08:51. He explained that requesting a limited
appointment, as opposed to one requiring a greater time commitment, sometimes
increases the likelihood that a lawyer will volunteer to represent an indigent
plaintiff. Id. 08:52-09:44. Judge Hawley did not rule on Plaintiff’s motion to request
counsel before the case was transferred to another judge. Judge Long granted
Plaintiff’s motions. Minute Entry dated Mar. 6, 2025. He did not limit the scope of
Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation at the March 6, 2025, hearing where Plaintiff
accepted representation.
Plaintiff’s detention and pro se status likely affected his ability to search for
and hire an expert, and any delay resulting from the search for pro bono counsel
was not Plaintiff’s fault. Based on Plaintiff’s statement that he received assistance
from jailhouse lawyers, the Court cannot attribute any lack of diligence in disclosing
experts to him. The proposed scope of the expert discovery does not appear likely to
cause significant delay, and the parties’ ability to conduct fact and expert discovery
concurrently mitigates any potential risk.
The Court finds that good cause exists to reopen discovery, and Plaintiff’s
motion is granted. The Court will reopen fact and expert discovery to the extent
requested in the motion. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding a
discovery schedule and to submit a proposed schedule to the Court within the
deadline set forth below. The parties are also directed to provide at least three
proposed final pretrial conference and trial dates.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE (DOC. 128)
Defendant’s motion to permit the withdrawal of Yordana J. Wysocki as
counsel of record is granted.
THEREFORE:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion [122] is GRANTED.
2) Plaintiff’s Motion [126] is GRANTED. Clerk is directed to docket the
proposed reply attached to Plaintiff’s motion.
3) Plaintiff’s Motion [123] is GRANTED.
4) Defendants’ Motion to Substitute Counsel [128] is GRANTED. Clerk
is directed to remove Yordana J. Wysocki as attorney of record for
Defendants Lape, Young, and Ruark.
5) The parties are directed to meet and confer and to provide to the
Court within 14 days of this Order a proposed discovery schedule
and at least three proposed final pretrial conference and trial dates.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 3rd day of July, 2025.
s/Ronald L. Hanna
Ronald L. Hanna
United States Magistrate Judge