Smith v. Knight et al

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
ADAM SMITH, #S15953
Plaintiff,
v.
KYLAN KNIGHT and ANTHONY WILLS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 23-cv-1297-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections at Lawrence
Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 	Doc. 1. 	He alleges that
Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) by
subjecting him to inhumane conditions in segregation. 	Doc. 146. 	Following resolution of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of administrative remedy exhaustion,
Plaintiff proceeds on the following claims in his Second Amended Complaint:
Count 7: 	Officer Knight subjected Smith to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement in segregation by cutting off the water supply to his cell
and thereby depriving him of use of a sink or toilet, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.
Count 9: 	Officers 	Knight 	and 	Warden 	Wills 	subjected 	Smith 	to
unconstitutional 	conditions 	of 	confinement 	in 	segregation 	by
confining him 24/7 in a cell with no water, no showers, no working
toilet, and no working sink, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Doc. 211. 	This matter comes before the Court on multiple motions filed by the parties.
Case 3:23-cv-01297-RJD Document 234 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
Motions to Reconsider (Docs. 216, 218)
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed no less than six motions to
reconsider various interlocutory orders in this case. 	Docs. 15, 38, 84, 199, 202, 216, 218. 	Two
of those motions are currently pending. 	Docs. 216 and 218. 	Any non-final order in this case
“may be revised at any time.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 	However, the purpose of a motion to
reconsider is to “correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence”,
not “rehash” the same arguments previously made, or arguments that could have been previously
made. 	Patrick v. City of Chicago, 103 F. Supp. 3d 907, 911-12 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (internal citations
and quotations omitted). 	Judicial resources have limits.
First, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Reconsider an order on a Motion to Reconsider
involving an exhibit that Plaintiff believes was attached to his proposed Second Amended
Complaint when it was submitted to the Court. 	Doc. 216. 	Plaintiff previously filed three
motions regarding the exhibit that ultimately was not attached to the Second Amended Complaint
when filed by the Court. 	Docs. 190, 212. 	The Court denied Plaintiff’s third motion with
prejudice. 	Doc. 212. 	Nonetheless, Plaintiff files his fourth Motion, a Motion to Reconsider the
order on a Motion to Reconsider, arguing that the Court does not understand the importance of the
exhibit which contains correspondence from his correctional counselor 	Doc. 216. 	The
correspondence tells Plaintiff, among other that things, that video footage taken at the prison “may
be received by an attorney who has filed a lawsuit on your behalf.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff believes
“officers destroyed video footage” of an altercation between him and Defendant Knight. 	Id.
Regardless, the issue raised in Plaintiff’s Motions to Reconsider-whether the document was
submitted with the Second Amended Complaint- has been considered and resolved. 	Docs. 190
and 211. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 216),
Case 3:23-cv-01297-RJD Document 234 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
as the third motion to reconsider this issue was denied with prejudice. 	Plaintiff is advised that if
the issue of video footage arises (either as a discovery issue or in dispositive motions), Plaintiff
may attach the document containing his counselor’s correspondence to whatever pleading he files
on that issue. 	Plaintiff may also move to admit the document at trial.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its decision to grant summary judgment on the
issue of administrative remedy exhaustion for Counts 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11. Doc. 218. 	None of
Plaintiff’s claims were exhausted via the administrative remedy process prior to Plaintiff filing
suit. 	However, summary judgment was only warranted in favor of Defendants on Count 1, 2, 4,
10 and 11. 	Counts 7 and 9 survived summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact
exists as to whether the administrative remedy process was unavailable to Plaintiff regarding his
alleged denial of drinking water. 	From the evidence, one could infer that the only reason Plaintiff
was ultimately given access to drinking water was because he filed suit and a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, and therefore he could not have waited to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing suit.1
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the summary judgment order asks the Court to
find that the calamities Plaintiff faced in Counts 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 were as imminently dangerous
as his lack of access to water. 	To be clear, the undersigned did not rank the allegations in
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint from most to least imminently dangerous threats. 	Counts
1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 were dismissed because the record unambiguously reflected that administrative
remedies were available to Plaintiff regarding those allegations. 	In contrast, the record contained
a question of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were available to Plaintiff for
1 Plaintiff testified that when the Court ordered Defendant Wills to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, the water was turned on in Plaintiff’s cell.
Case 3:23-cv-01297-RJD Document 234 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
Counts 7 and 9. 	Docs. 211, pp. 10-11. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 216) fails to
identify a manifest error of law or fact in the Court’s decision on Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, and is therefore denied. 	Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to respond to the
Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 221) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Inquiry (Doc. 215)
This motion was filed on July 22, 2025; in it, Plaintiff asks if the Court received three
pleadings from him in the previous week. 	Doc. 215. 	The Court received and filed three
documents from Plaintiff on July 18, 2025. 	Docs. 207, 208, and 209. 	The three documents
contained Plaintiff’s arguments opposing Defendants’ exhaustion summary judgment motion. 	Id.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 220)
On August 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for
pain and suffering.” 	Doc. 217. 	Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (filed in December
2024) requests punitive damages. 	Doc. 145, p. 12. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(2)
allows the Court to strike pleadings that are “redundant.” 	It is not necessary for Plaintiff to file
additional pleadings to reiterate what type of damages he is seeking. 	Defendants’ Motion to
Strike “Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for pain and suffering” (Doc. 217) is GRANTED. 	The
Clerk of Court is directed to strike Document #217.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Inform Defendants of Settlement Offer and Motion for Settlement
Conference (Docs. 222 and 233)
Plaintiff has two pending motions in which he states his belief that counsel for Defendants
has not informed her clients of his settlement demand because he never “received any answer or
acknowledgment.” 	Docs. 222 and 233. 	Plaintiff is advised that simply because Defendants have
not responded to his settlement demand does not mean they are unaware of it. 	As counsel for
Case 3:23-cv-01297-RJD Document 234 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
Defendants acknowledged, she has an ethical obligation to inform her clients of settlement
demands. 	Doc. 224. 	Plaintiff’s Motions to order defense counsel to inform her clients of
Plaintiff’s settlement demands and in the alternative, to require Defendants to appear in person in
Court so Plaintiff can tell them his demand (Docs. 222 and 233) are DENIED. 	However,
Defendants were previously willing to appear for a settlement conference (Doc. 152) and are
advised that if they are still interested (after receiving Plaintiff’s demand) they may inform the
Court and the undersigned will consider setting another settlement conference.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Lawsuit (Doc. 229)
Plaintiff provides the undersigned with a copy of an Order entered by Judge Rosenstengel
after an evidentiary hearing in which another inmate at Menard testified to being placed in a cell
with no working toilet or water. 	Doc. 229, pp. 3-35. 	Plaintiff asks to use Judge Rosenstengel’s
Order “as evidence against Defendant Knight under modus operandi…because it proves that this
is a common widespread practice among all officers at Menard.” 	Plaintiff may attempt to
introduce evidence regarding Defendant Knight’s “modus operandi” during the summary
judgment stage or at trial, but for now, the “Motion for Leave to Amend Lawsuit” (Doc. 229) is
DENIED. 	The Court will not preemptively consider this evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2026
s/ 	Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01297-RJD Document 234 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>