Beard v. Obaisi et al
| Donald E Beard |
| Gina Allen, S A Godinez, Dr. Obaisi, Michelle Millard, Rod Boyd, Tom Ackman and Alex Dawson |
| 3:2011cv03360 |
| September 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Logan |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
104
OPINION (See Written Opinion):Defendant Dr. Obaisi's motion for summary judgment is denied (d/e 65 ). The motion for summary judgment by Defendants Millard and Boyd is denied (d/e 67 ). Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's respon se to Defendants' reply is granted (d/e 76 ). Plaintiff's motion to deny Defendants' motion to strike is denied (d/e 78 ). No response to a reply is permitted under the local rules. Plaintiff's motions for disclosure, which a re construed as requests to admit character evidence of Dr. Obaisi at the trial, are denied (d/e's 82 , 89 ). 5.Plaintiff's motion to compel (d/e 91) is granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks Dr. Obaisi's affidavit filed under seal, w ith the identity and location of the hospital redacted. Dr. Obaisi has not adequately explained why the affidavit should remain confidential. Plaintiff's motion to compel is also granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks a copy of his medical reco rds, which include a referral to a physical therapist in November 2012. By August 19, 2013, Defendants are directed to provide Plaintiff with: 1) Dr. Obaisi's affidavit filed under seal, with the name and location of the hospital redacted; and 2) a copy of Plaintiff's medical records from October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, to the extent not already provided to Plaintiff. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/25/2013. Plaintiff's motion to take judicial notice (d/e [9 2]) appears to be a motion for a preliminary injunction to order a stop to alleged retaliation. The motion is denied (d/e 92 ). This case involves Plaintiff's medical treatment at Logan Correctional Center, not any incidents at Menard. If Pl aintiff is being subjected to constitutional violations in Menard Correctional Center, Plaintiff must pursue those claims in a separate lawsuit in the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiff's motion objecting to the stay of the final pretrial and trial dates until the pending motions were resolved is denied (d/e 96 ). Plaintiff's motion to add as evidence the Administrative Board's May 2013 denial of Plaintiff's grievance regarding his bone spurs is granted (d/e 99 ). Pla intiff motion to deny any further substitution of counsel for Defendants is denied (d/e 100 ). Plaintiff's remaining motions are denied as moot (d/e's 93 , 101 , 102 , 103 ) because this order grants the relief requested in those motio ns. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for October 7, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person. The parties are directed to submit an agreed, proposed final pretrial order at least seven days before the final pretrial conference. Defendant bears the responsibility of preparing the proposed final pretrial order and mailing the proposed order to Plaintiff to allow Plaintiff sufficient time to review the order before the final p retrial conference. See CD-IL Local Rule 16.3. 12. The proposed final pretrial order must include the names of all witnesses to be called at the trial and must indicate whether the witness will appear in person or by video conference. Nonparty wit nesses who are detained or incarcerated will testify by video. Other nonparty witnesses may appear by video at the Court's discretion. The proposed pretrial order must also include the names and addresses of any witnesses for whom trial subpoe nas are sought. The parties are responsible for timely obtaining and serving any necessary subpoenas, as well as providing the necessary witness and mileage fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The exhibit section of the proposed final pretrial order must list by number all the exhibits a party may seek to introduce at the trial and give a short description of the exhibit. (For example, Plaintiffs Ex. 1: 11/10/12 health care request). The parties must prepare their own exhibits for introduction at the trial, marking the exhibits with the same number that is on the list submitted to the Court. Exhibits that are introduced at trial will be kept in the Court record. Therefore, the party offering the exhibit is responsible for making a copy of t he exhibit to keep for the partys own records. Additionally, the parties are directed to exchange copies of their marked exhibits at least ten days before the final pretrial conference. If a party intends to object to the introduction of a proposed exhibit, that party must provide the Court a copy of the exhibit and an explanation of the grounds for objection at least five business days before the final pretrial conference. Objections will be argued orally at the final pretrial conference. T he Court will circulate proposed jury instructions, a statement of the case, and proposed voir dire questions prior to the final pretrial conference, for discussion at the final pretrial conference. Proposed additional/alternate instructions and voi r dire questions must be filed five business days before the final pretrial conference. The jury instructions, statement of the case, and voir dire questions will be finalized at the final pretrial conference, to the extent possible. Motions in limi ne are to be filed at least five business days before the final pretrial conference, to be argued orally at the final pretrial conference. The date for the jury selection and the jury trial will be determined at the final pretrial conference. In lig ht of the Court's busy trial calendar, the parties are reminded that they may consent to a trial before Magistrate Judge Cudmore. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)(parties may consent to full time Magistrate Judge conducting "any or all proceedin gs in a jury or nonjury civil matter). Consent is completely voluntary: the parties are "free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences." 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to issue a video writ to secure Plaintiff's appearance at the final pretrial conference. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
75
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1) Plaintiff's motion to amend is denied (d/e 41 ). 2) Plaintiff's motions to compel against Dr. Obaisi are granted in part and denied in part (d/e's 52 , 55 , 60 , 69 ). By November 5, 2012, Dr. Ob aisi is directed to file under seal for the Court's in camera review a list of any fines, sanctions, reprimands, discipline, or revocation of hospital privileges from the time period January 1, 2002 to October 1, 2012, arising from or relating to Dr. Obaisi's practice of medicine. Relevant documentation and explanations regarding that list should also be filed. Also by November 5, 2012, Dr. Obaisi is directed to file under seal a list of any criminal convictions against Dr. Obaisi o r criminal charges filed against Dr. Obaisi which occurred after October 1, 2002. 3) Plaintiff's motion for financial assistance to obtain expert testimony in support of his case is denied (d/e 55 ). 4) Plaintiff is advised that he must file his documents electronically. If Plaintiff continues to file his documents by mail, the Court may enter an order directing the clerks to return those documents to him unfiled. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/25/2012. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
16
Opinion (See Written Opinion): ) The status conference set for January 9, 2012, is cancelled. The clerk is directed to notify Plaintiff's prison of the cancellation. 2) Defendants' Answers are due January 31, 2012. 3) By February 29, 2012, the parties shall provide to each other the initial disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(i)-(ii). 4) Plaintiff shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by April 30, 2 012. 5) Defendants shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by May 31, 2012. 6) Discovery closes June 16, 2012. 7) Dispositive motions are due July 17, 2012. 8) Plaintiff's i ncarceration limits him to written discovery. Written discovery must be served on a party at least 30 days before the discovery deadline. Discovery requests and responses are not filed with the court, unless there is a dispute regarding such discov ery. See CDIL-LR 26.3. Motions to compel discovery must be accompanied by the relevant portions of the discovery request and the response. Additionally, except for good cause shown, motions to compel must be filed within 14 days of receiving an un satisfactory response to a timely discovery request. 9) A final pretrial conference is scheduled for Monday, April 9th, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.. Defendants' counsel shall appear in person. Plaintiff shall appear by video. The parties are directed to submit an agreed, proposed final pretrial order by April 1, 2012. 10) Jury selection and the jury trial are scheduled for Tuesday, April 30, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. before this Court in Springfield, Illinois. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/07/2011. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
8
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against Defendants Dr. Obaisi, Millard and Boyd . Any other claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 2. Defendants Ackman, Dawson, Godinez, and Allen are dismissed f or failure to state a claim against them. 3.This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a Scheduling Order directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. A copy of this Opinion shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduli ng Order. 4. Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. The merit review hearing scheduled for October 31, 2011, is cancelled as unnecessary. The clerk is directed to vacate the video writ and to notify Plaintiff of the cancellation. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/27/2011. (VM, ilcd)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
