UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

ERIC E. BERNARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 20-1367 ) JOHN DOES, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to

alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, excessive force, and retaliation. The matter comes before this Court for ruling on several outstanding motions. Defendant Davis’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 187) Defendant Davis moved for summary judgment arguing that she was not personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation because she was employed at Dixon Correctional Center, not Pontiac Correctional Center where Plaintiff was housed, during the relevant period. The facts Defendant Davis asserted in support of this contention do not contain citations to the relevant portions of the record as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Defendant Davis filed as Exhibit B a placeholder that reads “Affidavit of Defendant Ginger Davis (will be filed on receipt).” (Doc. 188-2). Defendant Davis did not subsequently file a motion asking to supplement the record with this document. Defendant Davis’ motion for summary judgment is denied with leave to renew within 30 days to provide the necessary support for each factual contention. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Plaintiff’s Renewal Motion for the Court to Obtain Expert (Doc. 208) A district court may, on its own or upon motion, “order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed.” Fed. R. Evid. 706(b). The court will employ experts where “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a); Ledford v. Sullivan,

(7th Cir. 1997). The decision to appoint an expert is within the court’s discretion. Ledford,

. Plaintiff indicates that the medical records in this case contain several neurology reports. He asks the Court to appoint an expert in the field of neurology to assist the Court and the jury in “understanding neurology as it relates to this case.” (Doc. 168 at 2-3). Plaintiff attached the relevant medical records. The records Plaintiff provided do not appear so complex that the Court cannot interpret the findings therein or how they are relevant to this case upon review of the entirety of the record. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 213) Plaintiff seeks sanctions for defense counsel’s alleged failure to provide Defendant Tilden’s signed verification with his response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories prior to Defendant Tilden’s death. Defense counsel indicates that she sent the signed verification in August 2022, and she attached the relevant documents to her response. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Update (Doc. 221) Plaintiff filed a motion stating that he and his attorney are not on the same page, that he wants to move for sanctions against the Defendants for withholding evidence, and that “if counsel[] aren’t willing to respect Plaintiff’s wishes then he will move to represent himself.” Plaintiff is not represented by counsel in this case, and his motion appears related to his other pending litigation. Plaintiff has not outlined his reasons for seeking sanctions in this case. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 226)

Defendants moved for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to file their own dispositive motion. The motion is granted. Defendants have since filed the relevant documents within the timeframe requested. New deadlines are not necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Defendant Davis’ Motion for Summary Judgment [187] is DENIED with leave to renew within 30 days of this Order. 2) Plaintiff’s Motions [208][213][221] are DENIED. 3) Defendants’ Motion [226] is GRANTED. Entered this 26th day of September, 2023.

s/Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE