Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aldridge v. Hampton

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky

March 8, 2017

CHARLEY IVY ALDRIDGE PLAINTIFF
v.
MITCH HAMPTON DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          JOSEPH H. MCKINLEY, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         On January 23, 2017, the Court entered a show cause Order in this action. Plaintiff responded to the Order (DN 40), and Defendant replied (DN 41). This matter is now ripe for ruling.

         I.

         On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff Charley Ivy Aldridge, then a prisoner incarcerated at the Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women, [1] filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sgt. Mitch Hampton of the Kentucky State Police. The Court performed initial review of the complaint and allowed the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, the Fourth Amendment inappropriate-search claim, and the claims brought under the Kentucky Constitution seeking monetary damages to proceed against Defendant in his individual capacity. All of the other claims were dismissed from this action.

         The Court entered the first scheduling Order in this action on June 15, 2015 (DN 8). Therein, the parties were directed to complete all pretrial discovery no later than October 23, 2015. The parties were ordered to produce all records and documentation relevant to the claims to the opposing party (required discovery disclosures) and file a certification with the Court of having done so by the October 23, 2015, date. Plaintiff was given until November 23, 2015, to file her pretrial memorandum setting forth in detail the facts upon which she bases her claims; Defendant was given until December 23, 2015, to file his pretrial memorandum; and the Order gave the parties until December 23, 2015, to file all dispositive motions.

         On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed her first motion for an extension of time to complete discovery (DN 14). Therein she stated that Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC) was “transitioning the compound from females to males and therefore [she] had no access to any legal material.” Defendant opposed the extension (DN 15). The Court granted the motion to extend the time for discovery and entered a revised scheduling order (DN 21). In the revised scheduling Order, the parties were directed to complete all pretrial discovery by February 23, 2016. The parties were ordered to make their required discovery disclosures to the opposing party and file a certification with the Court of having done so by February 23, 2016. Plaintiff was given until March 23, 2016, to file her pretrial memorandum; Defendant was given until April 25, 2016, to file his pretrial memorandum; and the Order gave the parties until April 25, 2016, to file all dispositive motions.

         On October 21, 2015, Defendant filed a discovery disclosure statement with the Court (DN 16). On that same date, Defendant also filed with the Court notices that he had served interrogatory requests and requests to produce documents on Plaintiff (DNs 17 & 18).

         On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel (DN 19). The motion was denied by the Court (DN 22). On February 1, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a notice of change of address to the Court (DN 23). At that time she indicated that she was being transferred to Dismass Charities in Louisville, Kentucky.

         On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time to complete discovery (DN 24). Therein she stated that she was released from WKCC on January 4, 2016, to “an all in-house treatment facility, ” and she was not able to access any legal materials. Defendant opposed this second request for an extension of time to complete discovery stating that Plaintiff had done nothing to move the case forward and that Plaintiff had not responded to any of his discovery requests (DN 25).

         The Court granted this second motion for an extension of time (DN 27). In this second revised scheduling Order, the parties were directed to complete all pretrial discovery by May 27, 2016. The parties were ordered to make their required discovery disclosures to the opposing party and file a certification with the Court of having done so by May 27, 2016. Plaintiff was given until June 27, 2016, to file her pretrial memorandum; Defendant was given until July 27, 2016, to file his pretrial memorandum; and the Order gave the parties until July 27, 2016, to file all dispositive motions. In the second revised scheduling Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this Order and Second Revised Scheduling Order MAY RESULT IN A DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE.”

         On May 26, 2016, Defendant filed a document with the Court titled, “Defendant's Compliance With Court Order Regarding Discovery” (DN 28). In this filing, Defendant stated that he had provided all of the names of witnesses with relevant information regarding the continuing claims to Plaintiff and had provided Plaintiff with all documents related to the remaining claims. Defendant also informed the Court that Plaintiff had served no discovery on him and that Plaintiff failed to respond to any discovery that Defendant had served on Plaintiff.

         On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third motion for an extension of time to complete discovery (DN 29). Again she stated that she was in an “in house treatment facility” and was “scheduled to be released on July 5, 2016.” The Court granted the motion and reset the discovery deadlines in this case (DN 34). In this third revised scheduling Order, the parties were directed to complete all pretrial discovery by October 17, 2016. The parties were ordered to make their required discovery disclosures to the opposing party and file a certification with the Court of having done so by the October 17, 2016, date. Plaintiff was given until November 17, 2016, to file her pretrial memorandum; Defendant was given until December 19, 2016, to file his pretrial memorandum; and the Order gave the parties until December 19, 2016, to file all dispositive motions. In this third revised scheduling Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this Order and Third Revised Scheduling Order MAY RESULT IN A DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE.”

         Defendant has filed his pretrial memorandum twice (DNs 32 & 38), and he has filed two similar motions for summary judgment and for sanctions (DNs 33 & 37). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to the first motion for summary judgment and for sanctions (DN 36); however, she failed to comply with that Order. The time to complete discovery as extended in the Third Revised Scheduling Order has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed her required discovery disclosure certification or her pretrial memorandum with the Court. Defendant represents that Plaintiff has not responded to any of his discovery requests or propounded ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.