Griffin v. Doe 1 et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMIAH BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-01303-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on several motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Matthew James
Griffin.
I. 	Motion to Substitute Party
Currently, Plaintiff is proceeding on a First Amendment claim against Defendants, including
Warden DeeDee Brookhart and Deputy Warden Jeremiah Brown, for the wrongful confiscation and
mishandling of his mail in 2023 (Count 1). (Doc. 9). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief. To the extent he seeks injunctive relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to substitute Brown, in his
official capacity, for Brookhart, in her official capacity, as Brown is now the current warden of
Lawrence Correctional Center. (Doc. 42).
As mentioned, Plaintiff requests injunctive relief in the “Request for Relief” section of his
Complaint. (See Doc. 1, p. 25). A request for injunctive relief is a remedy, “not a cause of action,” and
therefore, was not characterized as a separate count by the Court in the Merit Review Order at Doc. 9.
See Knutson v. Vill. of Lakemoor, 932 F.3d 572, 576 n.4 (7th Cir. 2019). Nor was the request dismissed
by the Court, as Defendant Brown argues. (Doc. 44). At this point, the issue of Plaintiff’s entitlement
to injunctive relief is premature, and injunctive relief remains available to him. That being said,
Case 3:25-cv-01303-SPM Document 57 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff’s motion requesting substitution is not proper because Plaintiff did not state in the Complaint
that he is suing Brookhart in her official capacity, so there is nothing to substitute. The Motion to
Substitute is therefore DENIED. (Doc. 42). The Court, however, will allow Plaintiff to proceed against
Jeremiah Brown in both his official and individual capacities for the purpose of obtaining damages and
implementing any injunctive relief that may be awarded at the close of this case. See Gonzalez v.
Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011).
II. 	Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Plaintiff has filed a motion taking issue with General Order No: 18-0014 Procedural Rules for
Electronic Filing Program. (Doc. 45). Specifically, he objects to the provision which provides that
inmates will receive a NEF for documents filed by the defendants from law library staff, but staff will
not print the document itself. Rather, the defendants will mail to the plaintiff, via the United States
Postal Service, a copy of any document they file. Plaintiff prefers to receive the NEF and a complete
copy of the defendants’ document together by mail at the same time. To the extent he seeks to modify
General Order No: 18-0014, the request is DENIED. (Doc. 45).
III. 	Motion for Extension of Time
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. 46). Plaintiff states that
he has not received the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) and the Rule 56 Notice (Doc. 41).
The Court, therefore, finds good cause to allow him additional time to file his response in opposition.
Plaintiff shall respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment on or before November 5, 2026.
IV. 	Motion to Strike
The Motion to Strike the Motion for Summary Judgment and Rule 56 Notice is DENIED.
(Doc. 47).
V. 	Motion for Entry of Default
The Motion for Entry of Default against Defendant Cecil filed by Plaintiff is DENIED. (Doc.
52). While ultimately Defendant Cecil failed to timely respond to the Complaint, the Seventh Circuit
Case 3:25-cv-01303-SPM Document 57 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
has established a policy favoring a trial on the merits of a case as opposed to default judgment. See,
e.g., Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 2009). Counsel for Defendant Cecil has
entered his appearance and requested additional time to answer and put forth a meritorious defense.
Allowing the parties to proceed will not prejudice Plaintiff given that this case is still in the early stages,
and John Doe Defendants have not been identified. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of
Default is denied. The request to extend the deadline to answer the Complaint filed by Defendant Cecil
is GRANTED in part. (Doc. 56). Defendant Cecil shall file her answer to the Complaint on or before
October 29, 2026.
VI. 	John Doe Discovery
Plaintiff has filed motions seeking additional time to identify the John Doe Defendants and
compel John Doe discovery. (Doc. 50, 51, 53, 54). The motion for extension of time is GRANTED.
(Doc. 50). Plaintiff shall have until November 12, 2026, to identify the John Doe Defendants and file
a motion to substitute.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Compel is GRANTED. (Doc. 54). The
Motion to Compel (Doc. 51) will remain pending. Defendants are DIRECTED to respond to the
assertions in the Motion to Compel by October 22, 2026. In their response, Defendants should
explain what efforts have been made to assist Plaintiff in identifying John Does 2-8, who are
described as individuals who handled or processed Plaintiff’s mail in January 2023 and March 2023.
The Court will also set a status conference to further discuss the progress of John Doe discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	October 8, 2026
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01303-SPM Document 57 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>