Petition for Writ of Certiorari — John Douglas, Petitioner v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court briefMar 20, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No: 25-

C. -

■-

i I

, i

_»■

’1

•

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

■HfcEB

MAR 2 0 2025

JOHN DOUGLAS

°upbeemefcoubtlm"k

Petitioner

WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, ETAL

Respondents

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

APPEAL NO: 24-2545

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

JOHN DOUGLAS// PRO SE PETITIONER ( PRISONER ID # R- 01021)

WESTERN ILLINOIS CORRECTIONAL CENTER

2500 ROUTE #99 SOUTH

MT. STERLING, ILL

62353

RECEIVED

APR 1 5 2025

QUESTION PRESENTED .

Whether a dismissal of a meritorious and complex de-consolidated Federal Section

1983 lawsuit is appropriate as a discovery sanction pursuant to FRCP Rule 37 (b)(2)(a) and/or

FRCP Rule 41 (b); when delayed compliance with discovery was NOT due to wilfulness, bad faith,

or any fault of the Petitioner, as a pro se prisoner litigant, but instead due to the well-recognized

difficulties in facilitating the discovery process in complex de-consolidated and pros

se cases, as

expressly admitted by the subject U.S. District Court in its own attached 11/22/1023 SCHEDULING

ORDER/ EXHIBIT " B" under the landmark legal principles set forth by this Honorable Sup

reme

Court in Societe Internationale v Rogers. 357 U.S. 197 (1958).

. TABLE OF CONTENTS

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

QUESTION PRESENTED ..........................

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......

OPINIONS BELOW ..............................

JURISDICTION ................................

... i

.......... ii

... iii

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................. .......

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT........

...

2-8

8-19

To avoid the wilful and unjust deprivation of one's property without due

process of the law under the 5th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, this

Honorable U.S. Supreme Court must clarify its prior legal standard for a

discovery sanction dismissal under FRCP Rule 37, as previously underscored

in its landmark holding m Societe Internationale v Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1953)

due to the significant number of conflicting U.S. Appellate Court decisions

among the appellate court circuits on this important matter pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule 10(a).

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX WITH LIST OF ATTACHED SUPPORTING EXHIBITS

....................

....

21/

III

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

£A§E£L

Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v Time Inc., 376 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1967) ..............

Brookdale Mil! v Rowley, 218 F. 2d 7281 (6th Cir. 1954) ....................

Bryan v Jeffreys, etal, (C.D. III. 18-2192) ...............................................

3,15

Collins v Illinois, 554 F3d. 693 (7th. Cir. 2009) .......................................

Donnelly v Johns-Mansville Sales Corp., 677 F2d. 339 ( 3rd Cir. 1982) ....

Dorsey v Academy Moving Storage Inc., 423 F2d 858 (5th Cir. 1970)....

Fluryv Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F3d. 939 (11th Cir. 2005) ..............

Ford v Larson, 2021WL 3513592 (S.D. III. 2023) ...................................

General Dynamics Corp. v Selb Mfg. Co., 418 F2d. 1204 (8th. Cir. 1973)

Gill v Stolow, 240 F.2d 669 ( 2nd Cir. 1957).............................................

Halaco Eng. Co. v Costle, 843 F.3d 376 ( 9th. Cir. 1989) .........................

Hammond Packing Co. v Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322 (1909).......................

8, 9,11

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford Empire, 322 U.S. 238 (1944)................

Hovey v Elliot, 167 U.S. 409 (1897)

Jones v Riot Hospitality Group, LLC,

8, 9,11

F4th

.(9th.Cir. 3/5/2024)

Mclnnis v Duncan, 697 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2012)..............................

Munoz-Santana v Ins., 742 F2d 561 ( 9th. Cir. 1984)..........................

National Hockey League v Met. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976)..

Ogunsula v Warrenfeltz, 2024 WL 298984 ( D. Md. 1/25/2024)......

Robison vTransamerica Ins. Co., 368 F2d. 37 (10th Cir. 1966).........

Societe Internationale v Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958)....................

2,8,9,10,11,15

Tesoriero v Carnival Corp., 965 F3d. 1170 (11th Cir. 2020).............

Wyle v R.J.Reynolds Inclusive, Inc., 709 F2d. 561 ( 9th. Cir. 1983)....

United States v Shaffer Equipment Co, 11 F3d. 450 (4th. Cir. 1993)..

3 Penny Theatre Corp. v Plitt Theatre, 812 F.2d. 340 ( 7th Cir. 1987)

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. 1254 .

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

United States Constitution Amendment V

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

John Douglas, an inmate currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional

Center in Mt. Sterling, Illinois, respectfully petitions, pro se, this Honorable U.S. Supreme Court

for a Writ of Certiorari to review the Orders of the U.S. Court of Appeals/Seventh Circuit//

APPENDIX EXHIBITS "H" AND "I"; which summarily affirm the dismissal order of the U.S. District

Court // APPENDIX EXHIBIT " F".

OPINIONS BELOW

The attached (2) orders of the U.S. Court of Appeals/Seventh Circuit (See APPENDIX

EXHIBITS " H" AND "I", dated 11/26/2024 and 12/27/2024, respectively) summarily affirm the

attached U.S. District Court's Dismissal Order. (See APPENDIX EXHIBIT "F", dated 8/15/2024).

JURISDICTION

Petitioner's Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals/Seventh Circuit was dismissed on

12/27/2024 (See APPENDIX EXHIBIT"!"); which invokes the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court

Under 28 USC 2254, having timely filed this Petition for Writ of Certiorari within the 90 days of the

said 12/27/2024 Order/ APPENDIX EXHIBIT "I".

VII CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution, Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capitol, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a

presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the

Milita, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the

Same offense to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to

Be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE

PROCESS OF LAW.

VIII.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Over 60 years ago, this Honorable United States Supreme Court held in Societe

Internationale v Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37

should NOT be construed to authorize the dismissal of a federal civil complaint based on a

plaintiffs non-compliance with a pretrial production order; when it has been established

that the plaintiff s failure to comply had been due to inability, and not due to wilfulness

bad faith, or any fault of the plaintiff.

However, since this aforementioned landmark holding in Societe Internationale

VRogers, supra., there has been a significant number of U.S. Appellate Court decisions that

have misconstrued this said holding; and furthermore, there are a significant number of U.S.

Appellate Court decisions in DIRECT CONFLICT WITH OTHER U.S. APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS,

resulting in conflicting circuit court rulings under Supreme Court Rule 10 (a).

As clearly demonstrated and documented in the following Statement of the Case,

this instant case presents the question of whether a dismissal of a meritorious and complex

de-consolidated Federal Section 1983 lawsuit is appropriate as a discovery sanction pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 (b)(2)(a) and/or FRCP Rule 41 (b); when the delayed

discovery compliance was NOT due to wilfulness, bad faith, or any fault of the Petitioner,

as a

pro se prisoner litigant, but instead due to the well-recognized difficulties in facilitating the

discovery process in complex de-consolidated and pros se cases.

THE WELL-DOCUMENTED FACTUAL STATEMENT OF THF CASE

(1)

On 4/12/2019, Petitioner court-filed his pro se Federal Section 1983 lawsuit

against Defendants Wexford Health Services, Christy Smith, K. Ashcraft, Cameron

Watson, and Tara Goins with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of

Illinois based on well-supported violations of his 8th Amendment right to p

roper

medical care for his extensive hernia, as a prisoner at the Western Illinois

Correctional Center in Mt. Sterling, Illinois.

(2)

(3)

review order finding complete merit withTltil^ ^

e"tered 3 merit

lawsuit; however denied Petitioner's motion forThe Co'urt to" “ Federa‘1983

appoint him counsel.

(4)

consolidated with (14) o^herhernia-refate'd Fed^Ts" ^ ^ °f ‘aCtion was

Filing 7.25)

re,ated Federal Action 1983 cases. (Doc.

(5)

the said consolidation of hernia cases^and^F0^ den'ed daSS Certification for

^:=«=r

ensure that the cases

(6)

consolidated case entered a tei order stating

Peti*°ner's de-

d'scovery deadline is reset to 8/4/2023 and thPHPertmentPart; " The

—

is reset to 9/5/2023. Given thease of

d h d'Sp°Sltlve moti°" deadline

extending these deadlines unless the mn •^ ^ d°eS not anticipate

circumstances and good cause for the

note that Defendants

counsels at Cassiday

stated extraordinary circumstances and existence of^oo^faithT ^ ^l0W'n

(a) "No entry was made on

or about 9/30/2022 in the docket of

the instant case reflecting that it had been deconsolidated

fromBx^antwJeffreys (c. d. Ill

18-2192)"

discovery and dispositive

motion scheduling order. "

(c)

" Brent J. Colbert and Rachael N. Hayes, the two attorneys who

had represented the Wexford Defendants (Wexford and Smith)

in this case; both left the employ of Cassiday Schade, LLP prior to

3/1/2023, when the undersigned, Atty Scott B. Sievers, joined the

said law firm."

(d) " While Defendants Kathy Ashcraft, Tara Goins, and Cameron Watson

( State Defendants) have served written discovery on Plaintiff, neither

Plaintiff nor the Wexford Defendants have served written discovery

requests and no depositions have been taken by any party in this

matter."

(e) " Wexford Defendants wish to conduct discovery in this action to

prepare for trial and a possible summary judgement motion. HOWEVER

THE UNDERSIGNED'S CASE LOAD HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED

HIM TO RESEARCH THIS CASE AND DRAFT APPROPRIATE DISCOVERY

REQUESTS OR TAKE PERTINENT DEPOSITIONS. THE UNDERSIGNED NOW

HAS DRAFTED INTERRROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFF, BUT

CANNOT SERVE THEM, AS LESS THAN 30 DAYS EXISTS FOR PLAINTIFF TO

ANSWER AND RESPOND TO THEM BEFORE CLOSE OF DISCOVERY.

CONSEQUENTLY, WEXFORD DEFENDANTS, AND THEIR COUNSELS NEED

ADDITIONAL TIME TO SERVE WRITTEN DISCOVERY, TO TAKE

DEPOSITIONS, AND TO DRAFT ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. "

(f) " To provide sufficient additional time for the parties to serve discovery

requests, to answer or otherwise respond to them, to sort out any

disputes over these discovery requests, and to ultimately take

depositions, and file dispositive motions, Wexford Defendants seek

approximately a 120 day extension of the discovery and dispositive

motions deadline in this case to 12/4/2023 for the close of discovery

and 1/3/2024 for the dispositive motions deadline. "

(g)

" The undersigned has conferred with Plaintiffs counsel, Atty Thomas

J. Pliura, and Plaintiffs counsel has no objections to this motion."

(See attached WEXFORD DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME/ EXHIBIT "A")

(8)

counsel, Atty Thomas tun

Defendants Kathy Ashtaft Tara r„

P°"a

in the attached £££££%*

'mPOr,ant'° "°‘e ** Plal"6«

'° ^ Writte" dis“^ °f

as evidenced

(9)

«-«»?jT"^ importanl to -°te tha*»

esame

o withdraw

Petitioner; and Petitioner's said case is D^MSSED V^THOLll^PREiUDlcE.

without an order for him to return a'll case d!c ’^ ‘’'T* ^'

(10)

otion to Vacate

which is granted and allows Petiti

oner

to proceed pro se.

(11)

On 11/23/2023,

her attached

(a) " Facilitating the discovery process in pro se case

can be difficult."

s like this case

(b) "Within30daysoftheentryofthisorder Plaintiff

shall provide

he following to Defendants' counsel, not 'to the Court"

he names of the persons with knowledge of the rei«

incidents, whom Plaintiff may use to supportTis^fa^ms^^

(ii)

(")

5a Sh°rt deSCription of w*>at each person knows "

Copies of documents Plalntiffpossesses whfc:h Plain iff

may use to support his claims.,nW

(Hi)

'Any information Plaintiff has to help identify the Doe

Defendants, if Doe Defendants are named"

(iv)

(c)" Within 45 days of the entry of this order Defendants ..

~ P'aintiff't0 the 6Xtent "«

Plaintiff or provided to Plaintiff the following:

(•)

Posse!sIdty

" Plaintiffs relevant medical records"

thos'e grievances nt ^devances ="d =» -ponses to

(iii)

Deddons" lndde"'

committee

(d)

"Discovery closes 5/20/2024"

(e)

" Written discovery requests must be mailed at a party

at least 30 days before the said 5/20/2024 discovery

deadline"

(12)

On 12/14/2023, IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED

ATTACHED 11/23/2023 SCHEDULING ORDER/ EXHIBIT " B", Petitioner served

on Defendants Wexford's counsel, Cassiday Schade, LLP, his attached pro se

letter/EXHIBIT"D"

(13)

■j

On or about 4/1/2024, Defendants Wexford and Smith served on

Petitioner pro se the following discovery requests to the Western Illinois

Correctional Center via US mail:

(a) Request to Produce Directed to Plaintiff

(b) Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff by Wexford

( See attached Certificate of Service of Discovery Documents/ EXHIBIT "E")

(14)

On June 11, 2024, the said U.S. District Court granted the Defendant's

Motion to Compel the above-mentioned written discovery, and in a texted order

of 7/8/2024, allowed Plaintiff to comply with said Defendants' discovery request

by 7/26/2024.

(15)

On 7/10/2024, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S TEXTED 7/8/2024

DISCOVERY ORDER, Petitioner served on Defendants Wexford's counsels at

Cassiday Schade, LLP the following completed discovery documents:

(a)

Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant Wexford's Interrogatories with

Exhibit A.

(b)

Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Request for Documents with

attachment for Response #10.

( See attached PETITIONER'S LETTER/DISCOVERY GROUP EXHIBIT " WWW" )

(16)

Moreover, on 7/10/2024, it is also extremely important to note that

Petitioner served on counsels for Defendants Wexford and Smith Petitioner's

Request for Production of Documents that has never been Answered.

(17)

On 7/29/2024, Defendants Wexford and Smith court-filed their

Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with discovery pursuant to FRCP

Rule 41 (b) and FRCP Rule 37 (B)(2)(a).

(18)

On 8/5/2024, Petitioner court-filed his Response to Defendants'

said Motion to Dismiss with supporting attachments/Exhibit WWW and

medical records.

(19)

On 8/15/2024, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Sara Darrow

court-filed her attached dismissal order/ EXHIBIT " F"; granting the

Defendants' said Motion to Dismiss due to Petitioner's alleged failure

to fully comply with his obligations to litigate his case.

(20)

On 9/3/2024, Petitioner timely court-filed his Notice of Appeal

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 4(a)(4)/ ATTACHED EXHIBIT "G" with the

said U.S. District Court.

(21)

On 10/21/2024, Petitioner court-filed his Motion for Permission

to Appeal in Forma Pauperis and with his supporting affidavit with the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

(22)

Also on 10/212/2024, Petitioner court-filed with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit his Memorandum in support of his Motion

for leave to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis.

(23)

On 11/26/2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals/ Seventh Circuit

issued its attached ORDER denying Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis on Appeal, since " the Appellant has not identified a good

faith issue that the District Court erred in dismissing his claims" ( See attached

11/26/2024 ORDER// EXHIBIT " H"

(24)

Thus, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1254, Petitioner

respectfully submits this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari within

90 days of the attached Judgment Order/EXHIBIT "H" from the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dated 11/26/2024.

(25)

Moreover, on 12/27/2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit dismissed Petitioner's Appeal and issued

its attached PLRA CR 3(b) FINALORDER// EXHIBIT "I".

IX:

MASONS FOR GRANTING PETITIONER'S REQUESTED WRIT OF CERTIORARI

i&4XS^g.L,FUL AND UMJUST deprivation OF ONE'S property

M01QUT DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW UNDER THE 5th AMENDMENTTO

Alfij^fefflg^§TITyT|ON, TH-[S_HONORABLE U.S. SUPREME COURT MUST

DISMISSAL UNDER FRCP RULES?, AS PREVIOUSLY UNDERSCORED IN ITS

LANDMARK HOLDING IN SOCIETE. INTERNATIONALE V ROGERS. 357 U.S.

NUMBER QMonflictinq

U.S. APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS AMONG THE APPELLATE COURT

T0 SUPREME COURT RULE 10(A).

(1)

In Societe Internationale v Rogers, supra . this Honorable

U.S. Supreme Court succinctly underscored that the provisions of

the subject Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must

be applied in light of the constitutional provisions of the 5th Amendment

to our U.S. Constitution, that no person shall be deprived of property

without due process of law and more particularly not against the prior

decisions of this Court in Hovev v Elliot, 167 U.S. 4ng (1897) and

Hammond Packing Co. v Arkansas. 217 U.S. 322 (1909).

(2)

These two above mentioned landmark decisions in Hovev

b, that were cited by this Honorable

Supreme Court in_Soci.ete v Rogers, supra., firmly established that there

are constitutional limitations upon the power of the courts, even in the

aid of their own valid processes, to dismiss an action without affording

a party the opportunity for a trial on the merits of his/her cause of

action, as clearly documented in Petitioner's instant case.

(3)

Moreover, as fully documented below, following this Court's

landmark and controlling decision in Societev Rogers, supra., the

U.S. Appellate courts have issued a significant number of decisions

in direct conflict with other U.S. Appellate Court decisions on this

important matter of discovery sanction dismissals under FRCP Rule 37,

resulting in conflicting U.S. circuit court rulings under Supreme Court

Rule 10 (a), as most recently recognized and addressed in Qgunsula v

Warrenfeltz. 2024 WL 298984 ( D. Md. 1/25/2024).

SPLIT CIRCUIT COURT AUTHORITIES

$82?

SEVENTH CIRCUIT

(A) McMahan v Deutsche Bank AG. 892 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2018)

The Appellate Court held that there is no requirement to enter lesser

sanctions before dismissing a case for lack of prosecution under

FRCP Rule 37. Cited in the subject U.S. District Court's attached

Dismissal Order/ EXHIBIT "F".

(B) .Mclnnis y Duncan. 697 F.3d 661 ( 7th Cir. 2012)

The Appellate Court held there is no abuse of discretion for dismissal

under FRCP Rule 37 without employing progressive discipline. Cited

in the subject U.S. District Court's attached Dismissal Order/EXHIBIT"F"

The Appellate Court held that the

'nr 812 F 2d 340 (7* Cir , ,a7,

e Appellate Court held that a court is vested with inherent powers

to manage their own affairs to achieve the orderly and expects

D smT ?n a T^' C'ted*he SUbjeCt U S' “strict Court

s attached

Dismissal Order/ EXHIBIT "F".

(E) _FordvLarson, 2021 WL 3513592 (S.D. Ill 2023)

The US. District Court held that a dismissal under FRCP Rule 37 is a

ot«;",heSUbiMU'S' DiS,r'CtC°^Dismissal

eighth circuit

,A) Ea^utak^^

sis F.2d 989 ( 8« Cir 1975)

to answ

t6 C°Urtt,eld th3t 3 FRCP Rule 37 dlOTissal

ure

to answer interrogatories doesn't apply when the failure to comply

y mg ess than a total failure to respond. Moreover the Court

underscored that the losing party's non-compliance must be due to

wilfulness, fault; or bad faith,- citing Soring » inhorn^;nna|Q „ D„

supra. More specifically, if a responsTi^tebT

request

for

documents, but is not satisfactory, FRCP Rul

e37 dismissal sanction is

NOT proper.

(B) -Q^QeXS,tPvnamics Com v Selb Manufacturing Co, 481 F2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1973)

The U.S. Appellate Court underscored that since the discretionary discovery

sanctions imposed herein are among the more drastic under FRCP Rule 37(b);

the alleged non-compliance must be due to the losing party's own fault,

wilfulness, or bad faith in order to legally justify their imposition, citing

Societe Internationale v Rogers. 357 U.S. 197 (1958)

FJKtLORcurr.

(A)

Bon Air Hotel, Inc. vTime, Inc., 376 F2d. 118 (5th Cir. 1967)

The U.S. Appellate Court expressly underscored that the dismissal of an

cause of action with prejudice under FRCP Rule 37 (b) is a drastic remedy

and therefore should be applied only in extreme circumstances. The

court went on to further underscore that a court has a responsibility to

do justice between man and man; and thus general principles CANNOT

justify denial of a party's fair day in court, except upon a serious showing

of wilful default or behavior, citing Gill v Stolow. 240 F. 2d 669 ( 2nd Cir

1957). Moreover, the court underscored that FRCP Rule 37 must be read

and applied in the light of the provisions of the 5th Amendment that no

person shall be deprived of property without due process of the law

through the wrongful dismissal of a case due to inability to comply with

pretrial production orders, as addressed by our U.S. Supreme Court in

Hovey v Elliot, 167 U.S. 409 (1897) and Hammond Packing Co. v State

of Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322 (1909).

(B)

Sorsey v Academy Moving Storage. Inc.. 423 F. 2d 858 ( 1970).

The U.S. Appellate Court expressly held dismissal sanctions under FRCP

Rule 37 (b) must be predicated on wilful disobedience, gross indifference

to the rights of the adverse party, deliberate callousness, or gross

negligence; and NOT predicated upon a party's failure to fully satisfy the

requirements of discovery when the failure was not due to inability

fostered by its own conduct or by circumstances within its control,

citing Societe Internationale v Rogers. 357 U.S. 197 (1958).

SIXTH CIRCUIT

(A)

218 F.2d 728 ( 6th Cir. 1954)

The U.S. Appellate Court held that the dismissal under FRCP Rule 37(d)

was affirmed on appeal based on the findings that the plaintiffs

omission to file answers to defendant's interrogatories was done

knowingly and intentionally.

NINTH CIRCUIT

(A) Jones v Riot Hospitality Group, LLC.

F.4th____ ( 9th Cir. 3/5/24)

The U.S. Appellate Court held that a dismissal of an employment

discrimination action pursuant to FRCP Rule 37 ( E) (2) was due to

intentional spoliation of electronically stored information by the

plaintiff.

(B) Halaco Engineering Co. v Costle. 843 F3rl

rw iggg)

The U.S. Appellate Court expressly underscored that the inherent

powers of the court for dismissal of a case for non-compliance with

discovery under FRCP Rule 37 is justified only in extreme cases of

wilfulness or bad faith.

Reynolds Inclusive , Inc.. 709 F.2d 561 ( 9th Cir. 1983)

Both U.S. Appellate Courts likewise expressly held that the inh

erent

powers of the court for dismissal of a case for non-compliance with

discovery under FRCP Rule 37 is justified only in extreme cases of

wilfulness or bad faith.

United States v Shaffer Equipment Co. n F3d. 450 (4th Cir. 1993)

The U.S. Appellate Court held that a court's inherent authority to

dismiss a cause of action exists only where a party abuses the judicial

system.

(B)

Project Mgmnt Co, v &

The U.S. Appellate Court held that the dismissal of the plaintiffs lawsuit was

proper due to the plaintiff's repeated discovery fraud, citing Hazel-Atlas

Glass. Co v Hartford Empire. 322 U.S. 238 (1944).

THIRD CIRCUIT

(A) PouJisy State Farm Fire & Cas Cn, 747 F2d. 863 (3rd Cir. 1984)

The U.S. Appellate Court held that dismissals with prejudice

as a

discovery sanction must be based on wilful or bad faith of a party

and prejudice to the other party caused by the non-compliance to

scheduling orders.

(B) ‘^aaD^^^D5=^aa^lS^il§i£org;^677 F2d. 339 (3rd. Cir 1982)

un^Ur f'rcpTu!^0"?^-655'7 U"derSCOred that a sanction dismissal

under FRCP Rule 37 is a drastic sanction and therefore must be reserved

only cases where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious

BBUBStfr

^ ^SQA-V Trarisamerica Ins. Cn =mg me s-j (nts C(L 19ggj

The U.S. Appellate Court firmly held that the legal purpose of FRCP Rule

37 ,s to secure compliance with the discovery rules and for the speedy

derelirtlTurstiN co^ntrite!1^ ^°T ^ PUniSh err'n® Part'es fhat are maybe

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

(A) BimfDai^erChaslerCor^Aa?F3d.939(11*Cir2005)andTesoriero

.V Carnival Corix, 965 F.3d 1170 (11th cir. 2020)

Both U.S. Appellate Courts firmly held that a FRCP Rul

e37 sanction

dismissal must be based clearly on bad faith

conduct for the purpose

of hiding adverse evidence.

SECOND CIRCUIT

(A)

Gill v StQLow. ,240 F2d. fifiQ ( 2nd Cir 1957)

The U.S. Appellate Court expressly underscored that a FRCP Rule

dismissal as a discovery sanction is extremely harsh; since there is a

strong constitutional policy favoring a trial on the merits and against

depriving a party of his/her day in court.

(4)

Here, consistent with this Honorable Court's aforementioned landmark

holding in Societe v Rogers, supra., the above mentioned attached record clearly

reflects that Petitioner has always exercised due diligence and good faith conduct

in compliance with all Scheduling Orders and discovery requests issued by the

Respondents in the following well-documented ways:

(A)

On 9/11/2019, Petitioner's meritorious pro se Federal Section 1983

lawsuit court-filed on 4/12/2019 was consolidated by the subject U.S.

District Court with (14) other hernia-related Federal Section 1983

cases. ( Doc. Filing # 7.25)

(B)

On 9/20/2022, the said U.S. District Court denied class certification

for the consolidation of the said hernia Federal Section 1983 hernia

cases, and de-consolidated all of the said cases. (See Brvan v Ipffrpw

C.D. III. 18-2192) and in its said ruling stated in pertinent part that " as

soon as its schedule permits, the Court will enter appropriate orders in

each of the de-consolidated cases to ensure that the cases proceed at

a resolution."

(C)

On 4/5/2023, the subject U.S. District Court entered a

texted order in Petitioner's said Federal Section 1983 case,

stating in pertinent part " The discovery deadline is RESET

to 8/4/2023 and the dispositive motion deadline is also RESET

to 9/5/2023. "

(D)

On 7/28/2023, the Respondent Wexford and Smith

through their counsels at Cassiday Schade LLC court-filed the

attached Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery

and to file dispositive motions//EXHIBIT "A", and requested a

120 day extension of the discovery and dispositive motion

deadline to 12/4/2023 for close of discovery and 1/3/2024 for

dispositive motions. (See Par #7 above in "

Statement of Case")

(E)

In August of 2023, in full compliance with the said

12/4/2023 reset discovery deadline, Petitioner's counsel, Atty

Thomas L Pliura, fully responded to the written discovery of the

State Defendants ( Def. Kathy Ashcraft, Def. Tara Goins, and Def. ■

Cameron Watson, as evidenced in the attached GROUP EXHIBIT "C".

(F)

(G)

On 10/20/2023, Petitioner's said counsel, Atty Thomas L

Pliura, was allowed by the subject U.S. District Court to withdraw

without an order for him to return all case documents/work product

to Petitioner and furthermore dismissed Petitioner's

case without

prejudice.

On 11/'11/2023, Petitioner court-filed his pro se Motion

to Vacate the said 10/20/2023 dismissal order; which was granted

and expressly allowed Petitioner to proceed pro se

(H)

On 11/23/2023, the U.S. District Court's Chief Judge Sara

Darrow entered her attached SCHEDULING ORDER/EXHIBIT "B";

which was fully addressed above in Par #11 of "

Statement of Case"

(I)

On 12/14/2023, in full compliance with the said attached

11/23/2023 SCHEDULING ORDER/ EXHBIT"B"; Petitioner served

on Respondents Wexford's counsel, Cassiday Schade LLC his

attached pro se letter with full discovery disclosures/EXHIBIT "D"

(J)

On or about 4/1/2024, Respondents Wexford and Smith,

through their said counsels served on Petitioner pro se their

discovery requests, as stated in the attached Certificate of Service

of Discovery Documents/EXHIBIT "E".

(k)

On 6/11/2024, the subject U.S. District Court granted

the Respondents' Wexford and Smith's Motion to Compel

Answers/Responses to their said written discovery; and in a

texted order of 7/8/2024, allowed Petitioner to comply by

7/26/2024.

(L)

On 7/10/2024, in compliance with the U.S. District

Court's said texted order of 7/8/2024, Petitioner served on

Respondents' said counsels the following completed discovery

documents:

(1) Plaintiffs Answers to Def. Wexford's Interrogatories

with Exhibit A.

(2) Plaintiff's Responses to Def. Wexford's Request for

Documents with attached for Response #10.

(See attached Petitioner's Letter/Discovery GROUP

EXHBIT "WWW')

However, despite the above mentioned and well-documented

(5)

due diligence and good faith efforts to timely and fully comply with all

discovery scheduling orders and discovery requests, the subject U.S. District

Court unfoundedly issued its dismissal order of Petitioner's meritorious Federal

Section 1983 cause of action/EXHIBIT "F", based solely on 7th Circuit case

decisions and on the following erroneous assertions of non-compliance:

(1) " Plaintiff John Douglas has failed to make his initial

disclosures as ordered by this court in its Scheduling

orders of 2/6/2024, 6/11/2024, and 7/8/2024. "

(2) " Douglas has failed to respond to Defendant's Smith

interrogatories, even though the court granted Def.

Smith's Motion to Compel and ordered him to do so."

(3) " Douglas has not produced the medical records to

Defendants that he claims to have sent to Defendants."

( See attached 8/15/2024 Dismissal Order/EXHIBIT"F")

(6)

In direct contradiction to these above mentioned (3) erroneous

assertions of Petitioner's non-compliance, the aforementioned attached

record clearly reflects due diligence and good faith actions of Petitioner

in full compliance with all said discovery Scheduling Orders and discovery

requests; which includes all required discovery disclosures, requested

discovery documents, and even medical records that were produced not

only to the counsels for Respondents Wexford and Smith, but also to the

subject U.S. District Court with Petitioner's attached Response to Def's

Motion to Dismiss/ EXHIBIT "J", page #10. Lastly, Def. Smith's Interrogatories

were answered through the same questions presented in Def. Wexford's

Interrogatories.

(7)

Thus, this case presents this Honorable U.S. Supreme Court

with an excellent opportunity to clarify its prior legal standard for a

discovery sanction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37,

as previously underscored in its landmark and controlling decision in

Societe Internationale v Rogers, supra., particularly in light of the

aforementioned and well-documented significant number of conflicting

U.S. Appellate Court decisions among the U.S. Appellate Court Circuits

on this important matter; and more importantly to avoid the wilful

and unjust derivation of one's property without due process of the

law under the 5th Amendment to our United States Constitution, as

clearly documented and fully addressed above in Petitioner's case.

CONCLUSION -•4

WHEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, PETITIONER JOHN DOUGLAS,

PRO SE, RESPECTFULLY RFEQUESTS THIS HONORABLE U.S. SUPREME COURT

TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE AFOREMENTIONED AND

ATTACHED ORDERS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS/SEVENTH CIRCUIT//

APPENDIX EXHIBITS "H" AND "I" AS WELL AS THE ATTACHED DISMISSAL

ORDER OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT//APPENDIX EXHIBIT" F"

Respectfully submitted

/JOHN DOUGLASTlD # R-0102

PROSE PETITIONER

WESTERN ILL CORRECTIONAL CTR.

2500 RT# 99 SOUTH

MT. STERLING, ILL 62353

NOTICE OF FILING //

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TO; ATTY BRADLEY J.TAY;OR ( COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS)

CASSIDY SCHADE LLP

20240 WEST ILES AVENUE- SUITE B

SPRINGFIELD, ILL 62704

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ON OR ABOUT MARCH 25, 2025, MY ATTACHED PRO SE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS WERE COURT-FILED WITH THE U.S.

SUPREME COURT THROUGH MY RETIRED LAWYER FRIEND, JAMES PANCRATZ; WHO I FULLY

AUTHORIZED TO FILE AND SERVE DUE TO MY CURRENT STATUS AS A TOTALLY DISABLED IN

PATIENT IN THE MEDICAL INFIRMARY AT THE WESTERN ILLINOIS CORRECTIONAL CENTER, AND

A COPY OF SAME WAS ALSO SERVED ON OPPOSING COUNSEL ATTHE ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE

VIA US MAIL I CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORHECL/f

.USA

DATE

JOHN DOUGI

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.