Sanders v. Hutchings et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CORDELL SANDERS, # R41346,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JADA HUTCHINGS, JONAVAN
BRIDWELL, ROBERT E. REID,
DARREL MELLENDORF, and AARON
MUSGRAVE.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 24-cv-1577-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), filed this matter pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 	He
alleges that on July 25, 2023, Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights at Lawrence
Correctional Center (“Lawrence”) by refusing to contact mental health staff while he was having
a mental health crisis, and by using excessive force against him. 	This matter comes before the
Court on various discovery motions by Plaintiff.
First, Plaintiff requests leave to serve 16 interrogatories on Defendant Reid. 	Doc. 40.
The Court previously set a limit of 15 interrogatories to be served on each party. 	Doc. 30.
Plaintiff filed the 16 proposed interrogatories, all of which are related to the events alleged in
Plaintiff’s Complaint; none appear unduly burdensome or otherwise improper. 	Doc. 40-1.
Defendant Reid did not file an objection to the Motion. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to serve 16
interrogatories upon Defendant Reid is GRANTED. 	Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to
Compel responses to these interrogatories, which is DENIED AS PREMATURE. 	Doc. 49.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel video camera footage of the events that occurred
Case 3:24-cv-01577-RJD Document 59 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
on July 25, 2023. 	Doc. 42. 	Defendants have responded, stating that the footage is available for
Plaintiff to view but he must arrange a viewing with the administrative office at Menard. 	Doc.
48. 	Defendants further explain because of prison security issues, Plaintiff cannot possess the
footage at Menard. 	Docs. 48 and 55. 	It is not clear whether Plaintiff has ever attempted to
contact the administrative office at Menard to arrange viewing the footage. 	While Plaintiff claims
the administrative office has never made the footage available to him, he also states that the footage
only shows him exiting the cell. 	Doc. 53, p. 1; Doc. 56, p. 2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
video footage from July 25, 2023 (Doc. 42) is DENIED. 	Doc. 42. 	If Plaintiff encounters
difficulty arranging the viewing, he should contact defense counsel and ask for assistance. If he is
still unable to view the footage, he may re-file his Motion to Compel but he must include
information regarding the attempts he made to communicate with the administrative office at
Menard.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants’ responses to his Requests for Admissions.
Doc. 52. 	Plaintiff claims that he mailed the Requests for Admission to Defendants and kept a
copy of the originals. 	Doc. 56. 	Defendants explain that they never received the Requests. 	Doc.
55. 	Plaintiff should re-send the Requests for Admissions to Defendants. 	The Motion to Compel
(Doc. 52) responses to the Requests for Admissions is DENIED. 	The Court cannot order
Defendants to answer something they never received.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel video footage of the alleged excessive force on July
25, 2023, explaining that Defendants only produced footage that shows him exiting the cell. 	Doc.
53. 	Defendants explain that they have produced video of Plaintiff exiting his cell, as well as “the
longer version of the video recording from the infirmary security camera” and that Plaintiff may
view this footage by contacting the administrative office at Menard. 	Doc. 55. 	Defendants state
they do not have footage of the alleged excessive force. 	Doc. 55. 	The Court cannot compel
Defendants to produce something they do not have. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel footage of the
Case 3:24-cv-01577-RJD Document 59 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
alleged excessive force on July 25, 2023 (Doc. 53) is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Court Intervention”, explaining that when he was
relocated to a new cell at Menard in August 2025, he was not allowed to bring his documents for
this case. 	Doc. 54. 	He requests a copy of the Complaint and documents produced by Defendants
in discovery. 	The Court expects defense counsel to make reasonable efforts to provide Plaintiff
with copies of discovery and notes that Plaintiff has offered to pay for those copies. 	Doc. 54. 	As
a one-time courtesy, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of his Complaint and
the attached exhibits found at Doc. 1.
The discovery deadline in this case was October 27, 2025. Doc. 30. 	To allow the parties
additional time for Plaintiff to serve 16 interrogatories upon Defendant Reid, and also re-send the
Requests to Admissions to Defendants, the Court sua sponte extends the discovery deadline to
January 27, 2026 and the dispositive motion deadline to February 27, 2026. 	The August 2026
final pretrial and trial settings remain unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 31, 2025
s/ 	Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01577-RJD Document 59 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>