United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER AND REPORT AND
B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
se plaintiff Shawn Evans (“Evans”) filed an
amended complaint on May 10, 2012 and a supplement on August
22, 2012, both under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 9.)
Evans alleges a verbal threat of assault on December 31, 2011
to deter him from filing administrative grievances. Evans
alleges an actual assault on January 13, 2012 and retaliation
for a grievance having been filed. Following discovery and
various pretrial motion practice, the Court noted that
discovery ended and that the case was ready for trial. (Dkt.
the Court deemed the case ready for trial, two sets of events
have occurred. First, defendants asked District Judge
Lawrence J. Vilardo, in court and by motion, for permission
to file a second motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos.
103-05.) That matter will run its course before Judge
Vilardo. Second, Evans filed a blizzard of 11 motions seeking
a wide variety of relief including extensions, additional
discovery, and prospective or injunctive relief. (Dkt. Nos.
117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130.) For
the sake of clearing the docket of any matters not related to
defendants' request for a second summary-judgment motion,
the Court writes now to address each of Evans's motions.
Motion for General Extension of Time (Dkt. No.
motion, written more or less in letter format, is one page
long. Evans generally requests an “extension to file a
response to any outstanding motion that's pending in
front of you.” (Dkt. No. 117 at 1.) Since this motion
does not refer to any specific motion actually pending, the
Court has nothing to decide here. The Court accordingly
denies the motion but without prejudice to seek appropriate
extensions to address any specific matters that will remain
pending before Judge Vilardo after this writing.
Motion for a Conference Under Rule 59 (Dkt. No.
three-page motion, Evans invokes Rule 59 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and requests a conference “in regard
to this matter be[ing] resolved.” (Dkt. No. 119 at 2.)
Rule 59 concerns requests for new trials and requests to
alter or to amend judgments. No trial or judgment has
occurred yet in this case, making Rule 59 inapplicable. Judge
Vilardo can schedule future conferences as he sees fit with
respect to trial preparation or the pending defense request
for a second summary-judgment motion. Without any other
reason to schedule a status conference at this time, the
Court denies the motion.
Motion for Extension and for Resent Initial Disclosures (Dkt.
the previous motion, this motion from Evans also spans three
pages. What Evans seeks in this motion is not clear. There is
a mention of responding “to the motion for summary
judgment”; there is no motion for summary judgment
pending, though Evans might be referring to the defense
request for permission to file a second motion for summary
judgment. The motion also contains references to reinstating
an unspecified motion; compelling unspecified discovery;
obtaining an extension for time to respond “to any
outstanding motions in front of your court”; and
obtaining additional copies of defendants' initial
disclosures because the Assistant Attorneys General who
worked on the case up to that point instructed the Elmira
Correctional Facility to destroy Evans's legal papers.
Even more confusing is that Evans already has responded to
the defense motion for permission to file a second
summary-judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 108.) The only meaningful
part of Evans's motion is the reference to initial
disclosures. If Evans wants additional copies of the
disclosures that were filed, or of any other item in the
docket, then he may write to the Clerk of the Court to
request copies of specific docket items. The rest of the
motion is meritless. The Court accordingly denies the motion.
Motion for a Conference for Corruption Explanation (Dkt. No.
only substance in this motion appears in one sentence. Evans
seeks a conference “for this corruption with the
facility creating fraudulent documents and defrauding the
State of New York and doing a lot of unconstitutional
misconduct to proceed justice.” [sic] (Dkt. No. 121 at
2.) The Court denies this frivolous motion without further
Motion for ...